dragons in the flower bed Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I think we should all go back to paying with chickens. As in, "I can't pay your fee, but I brought you this chicken." You know, I have known someone who would take chickens, or whatever you had, even pieces of artwork. It was illegal for her to practice medicine because she was trained by a master folk healer, not a college-educated doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I haven't read all the replies (sorry, just too many to go through) but here are my thoughts.... I think a free market health care system is the best option. The gov should have no business between a patient and their doctor. A free market health care system includes the following: Private designations for doctors that are self regulated. If people want to pay higher prices for some designations they can, or if they want to pay for no designation they can, or a mid range, etc... This is how accounting is done and I think it works quite well. People should be allowed to import drugs from anywhere they want. There should be no import or export restrictions on anything that is not illegal. In the same way as dr's would get designations, drugs could also be self regulated, with private designations replacing things like the FDA. People could them chose to buy drugs approved by trusted groups, or experimental ones if they so chose. People should not have to pay any tax for medical care. This means no paying into a free medical system, and no paying income tax on medical expenses. With this saved money, people could pay for their medical expenses, buy insurance, or donate money to voluntarily support medical services for those who cannot afford them. The gov that governs least, is the gov that governs best. --St. Claire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Nothing like this for political discussion. :tongue_smilie: I'd say privatize it! Take out the employer subsidized healthcare and just privatize the heck out of it. Let the competition begin. :D Oh my gosh, really? See, I don't think that's worked worth a darn in any major industry. Well, I mean, it's worked for the CEOs and CFOs and the people who get kickbacks, but I think the rest of us are getting hosed. I think if we deregulate, in 20 years our kids will be selling kidneys to AntheKaiserGloboShield in order to get a strep test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 [At first, this statement bothered me. But, I think it speaks to an issue that is part of the topic. Over use of medical care isn't limited to low incomes on gov't assistance. I've been in enough ERs and Dr's offices to see people abuse their medical coverage - of any level. I can't imagine it's fair that we'd have a differing set of expectations for those on assistance. /QUOTE] Absolutely, Joanne. I said as much in another post. I wasn't singling out Medicaid users (as we are Medicaid users), but rather pointing out the problems that could result from a gov't run health care system. I think that *all* people, whether on assistance or not, need to be more responsible about use of the system as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 People should be allowed to import drugs from anywhere they want. There should be no import or export restrictions on anything that is not illegal. In the same way as dr's would get designations, drugs could also be self regulated, with private designations replacing things like the FDA. People could them chose to buy drugs approved by trusted groups, or experimental ones if they so chose. Isn't that how we got toxic toys from China? And tech help from India pretending to be from Topeka? And isn't that where a bunch of our jobs have gone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin in Tx Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 My first reaction to your subject line was if the problems could be solved by someone here on this message board, they would have been solved a long time ago. I think we can talk about how to improve our health such as to avoid healthcare needs, but let's face it. We're all going to die. And most of us will not die suddenly or tragically. We'll be ill for a long time first. That's where most the money is spent - on the last days of life, trying to prolong it, trying to improve the quality. I don't know how to "fix" that, to be honest. I'm glad that fixing it isn't my job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Isn't that how we got toxic toys from China? And tech help from India pretending to be from Topeka? And isn't that where a bunch of our jobs have gone? I don't have any toxic toys from China, and I have had great tech support from India, and my job hasn't gone anywhere. If you don't trust toys made in China, don't buy them. But if someone else does want them, what's it your concern? If you don't want tech support from India, then don't use a company who has tech support in India. If your job went to overseas, then work for less, get a more skilled or service oriented job, or move overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I haven't read all the replies (sorry, just too many to go through) but here are my thoughts.... I think a free market health care system is the best option. The gov should have no business between a patient and their doctor. A free market health care system includes the following: Private designations for doctors that are self regulated. If people want to pay higher prices for some designations they can, or if they want to pay for no designation they can, or a mid range, etc... This is how accounting is done and I think it works quite well. People should be allowed to import drugs from anywhere they want. There should be no import or export restrictions on anything that is not illegal. In the same way as dr's would get designations, drugs could also be self regulated, with private designations replacing things like the FDA. People could them chose to buy drugs approved by trusted groups, or experimental ones if they so chose. People should not have to pay any tax for medical care. This means no paying into a free medical system, and no paying income tax on medical expenses. With this saved money, people could pay for their medical expenses, buy insurance, or donate money to voluntarily support medical services for those who cannot afford them. The gov that governs least, is the gov that governs best. --St. Claire YAY!!! I love it! It puts the responsibility and choice back on the patient! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 How in the world can you compare the two? I'm not. I just asked a question, that's all. :) Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 It does not need fixing just better management. I am not for socialized medicine for the waiting lists for certain checkups and needs can be longfrom what I understand. There is a certain amount of basic care everyone deserves and can actually get with good communication. i.e. my bil has diabetes and just had a stroke my sister conversed with the hospital and they found $$ for his care as well as a place that donates the equi[ment he will need for his care at home. One just has to seek the right people to converse with and be willing to fill out the paper work for the funding. Problem is people don't cooperate with the hospital so they can get their money through certain government or non profit agencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Anyhoo, the Conference got together with the insurance company, and they said that if the Conference lost a total of such-and-such pounds (it worked out to about five pounds per pastor, IIRC) over the course of . . . I think it was a year, they would be given a reduction in premiums. Well. It. Worked. They lost the weight, and a little bit extra, and their total costs plummeted! They got an even better discount than they had been offered, because the change was so dramatic. I was astounded when I heard that story. It really gives you a sense of the corporate diffusion of responsibility, you know? A couple little steps in the right direction, and all of a sudden everyone's better off. A little slide the other way, and everyone pays. My husband's company is aiming for something similar: create a healthier population by offering rewards to individuals who improve their health in "baby step" ways. When the program was first implemented, employees were asked to have a quick physical at work and were given goals that would lead to a cash reward. I thought this was a great idea. The "baby steps" for the annual goals included things like losing an inch or two at the waist, reducing blood pressure by x, increasing HDLs to y, while lowering total cholesterol to z. All small increments, all totally voluntary. In explaining the program to a friend with a libertarian streak, she was outraged. She feels that if someone wants to smoke or be obese, let them. Employers, in her opinion, have no business dictating what happens in personal life. Well, I responded, why do I have to subsidize the people who choose to lead unhealthy lives within our group insurance? There was no clear answer to the question from our discussion which I think reflects part of the complexity of the problem. Insurance rates are often determined in part by the habits of a group, yet people rarely feel responsibility to the group. Answers? I don't have them. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I'm not. I just asked a question, that's all. :) Tara :confused: Oh, I get it, you don't really beleive that. Okay. So it really wasn't a part of your point.:001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 :confused: Oh, I get it, you don't really beleive that. Okay. So it really wasn't a part of your point.:001_huh: No. I'm not saying that. I am not trying to argue with you or say that you are wrong. I asked the question I asked because I wondered whether that was the author's idea. Nothing more. Nothing sneaky. You can take the question at face value. Or not, I guess. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No. I'm not saying that. I am not trying to argue with you or say that you are wrong. I asked the question I asked because I wondered whether that was the author's idea. Nothing more. Nothing sneaky. You can take the question at face value. Or not, I guess. Tara What was the point in asking the question then? Because I really don't understand.:confused: You could just check the book out of the library and research it. I really wish I had renewed that book! I've not read her book, though I am familiar in passing with the NT diet. Is Ms. Fallon saying that certain animals which humans choose to eat are capable of synthesizing certain amino acids which humans are not able to? By and large, the animals humans have chosen to consume are herbivores. Tara It seems that you were making a comparison which is why I asked my question. Sorry, don't mean to be testy. It seemed a little out of line since you asked the question, then acted like you didn't want to know an answer. Chalk it up to differences in communication styles I guess. This conversation seems to have deteriorated and isn't going anywhere. I think I'll bow out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 This is still a choice. Some people can handle this schedule and afford healthier foods. Although, healthy food is really not expensive if you grow it yourself. Home-grown beef costs about $2.50 per pound from the original purchase as a 2-day old to butcher at the butcher's (if you process your own it's even less expensive). A garden costs about $50 in seeds and then your time. A canner costs about $100, jars $10/dozen. Anybody except an apartment dweller can have a garden. I realize not everyone can have a steer. But healthy eating is not necessarily more expensive. hmm. good for you, not neccesdsarily true for everyone else. I cannot feed my family any healthier without paying a lot more money. Yeah $160 is about 1/4 of my grocery money. If I paid that today, I'd have to completely cut all groceries for a week and wait months to MAYBE see any return for the investment. Same goes for buying from a butcher, if I have several hundred dollars to by an entire freezer worth in one bulk buy, I'd get a deal - but I don't have that kind of money to spend on one major purchase. yes, some people have hectic schedules, but have the income to make it worth it and to afford the continue to eat well. Americans used to be creative in the ways they took care of their families. The apartment dweller can barter for farm fresh goods.Going back to the 12 hour day, 2 hour commute. That's a choice also. Of course, if someone is not willing to change jobs or locations then one spouse should stay home enough time to cook balance meals. Even without the organic (which is not necessarily healthier anyway) food, a good balanced meal is better than ramen. The presumption here is that they can just move (many people right now can't get out of their mortgages to sell and even if they did - where woudl they move?) or could get a comparable job closer to home (right now many people cannot or it wouldn't pay diddly). Yes, we all make choices and can make different choices. But your presumption that people can just move, just get another job, just have a spouse stay home are all just that - presumption. Many people do evaluate their financial circumstances and find it would be flat out foolish to do those things. They need the income more than they need the whatever else at the time. Maybe when they got the job doing the commute it was the smartest thing at the time. Maybe it didn't require a 12 hour day when they started. Maybe gas wasn't so expensive or the job had better benefits or whatever. Then things change and they hope it's temporary so they stick with it. Many people stick with a job that's horrible and doesn't pay diddly because they need benefits for a family member. You toss a LOT of presumptions about people around. Are some just bad choices? Sure. But often what is a good choice today can be terrible tomorrow. Circumstances often change much faster than income. My point is that how we live is a choice. I choose to stay home and take care of my family. .... We need to go back to taking care of ourselves and our families. Big businesses might suffer, oh well. Again presumptive. Most people with different lives are choosing to take care of their families too. :confused: Are you saying my dh isn't? He works his bum off every day with a f/t and a p/t job to pay for a decent education, health care, a home for our kids in a decent area, for me to stay home. He gets little to no reward for it. We don't have family vacations or live in any way a toy laden comfy life. We have a nice life, but by no stretch are we having luxeries around here. And it makes me sick to my stomach to see how many hours he has to work to equal the cost of just ONE bottle of glucose strips that doesn't even last a week. And yes, there's been times in the past we've had to choose to not buy them or buy food or at least do use them very sparingly. It's not right. It's not healthy. It's not reasonable. And there's no excuse for it to be that way. I've said many times, there's NEVER going to be a cure for diabetics, esp type 1. It's way too big a cash cow for pharm companies. There's no way a cure could ever compete with the revenue they get every time my dh pricks his finger.:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 In explaining the program to a friend with a libertarian streak, she was outraged. She feels that if someone wants to smoke or be obese, let them. Employers, in her opinion, have no business dictating what happens in personal life. Well, I responded, why do I have to subsidize the people who choose to lead unhealthy lives within our group insurance? There was no clear answer to the question from our discussion which I think reflects part of the complexity of the problem. Insurance rates are often determined in part by the habits of a group, yet people rarely feel responsibility to the group. I agree 100% with your friend. If they don't want to cover obese people, then that's their choice when they purchase the plan. But my dh works for the company for a wage, how he lives his life outside of work and his health is none of their business. The solution is to remove insurance from employeers and make it affordable for individuals and families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I don't have any toxic toys from China, and I have had great tech support from India, and my job hasn't gone anywhere. If you don't trust toys made in China, don't buy them. But if someone else does want them, what's it your concern? If you don't want tech support from India, then don't use a company who has tech support in India. If your job went to overseas, then work for less, get a more skilled or service oriented job, or move overseas. I find that attitude offensive. Everyone could and can buy toys from China, but China's toys were not safe, and we were poorly informed by others, quite deliberately. No one wants toxic toys, nor do they want corporations and the government to look the other way...unless they themselves benefit from selling toxic toys. If you can afford to buy expensive toys made responsibly, good for you. The idea that Americans who can't are somehow at fault when their children are poisoned is reprehensible. And if you have plastic toys in your house AT ALL and have not done very careful checking, odds are you have toxic toys. From China. I will look for an article, but I can tell you that American telephone companies have actively deceived callers by training their Indian employees to assume American identities. The issue is not as simple as choosing, nor is it an issue of the quality of help available. The issue is that deregulation has in many instances allowed greedy individuals and corporations to benefit themselves at the expense of average Americans, in this case by outsourcing jobs so that they don't have to pay any American's idea of a living wage. Small government may work when scoundrels have to live next door to the people they affect with their decisions, but it is not working in the era of globalization. There is potential for disaster, so I find your attitude cavalier. A quote from an interesting paper: Many on this side of the debate are also worried that services offshoring will raise unemployment rates, depress wage and benefit levels, and exacerbate the existing inequality of the U.S.'s income distribution. A good number of them argue that it is essentially inevitable that expanding a labor market in the way that services offshoring does will depress wage and benefit levels, at least over the short term - say, two to three decades. The only real question for them is, how much? The answer to that question may be: considerably. Blinder's essay quotes Indian economists to the effect that it will take a few decades for that country to add another 300 million skilled workers to India and China's workforce. He then points out in response that "a few decades" is just the time frame about which we should be concerned and that 300 million additional workers in competition for high end service jobs is twice the current total workforce of the United States (Blinder 2006). It is hard to imagine then that this kind of labor market expansion would have no negative effect on American wages, salaries and benefits. Lending support to the need for concern in this regard, Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, has been quoted in the New York Times as saying that "What worries me is that [services offshoring] could have an enormous effect on wages, and that could have a wrenching impact on society" (Lohr 2005).The fastest growing industry in our nation, last I checked, was retail. Raise your hand if you've ever used the words "retail" and "vocation" in the same sentence. Is that really what we want for these kids we are so carefully homeschooling? We are becoming a nation of consumers, and that's a dangerous thing to be. It's not that there aren't people in this country who are excellent at their trade, it's that thoughtless or unscrupulous Americans who want what they want when they want it for as cheap as they can get it are failing to take the long view. I consider this "me first" attitude, whether it arises from pride in privilege or just plain apathy, to be extremely poor citizenship. I've had my patriotism challenged for not supporting a military action I felt was needlessly endangering American soldiers, but no one ever seems to question this kind of anti-American behavior. Here's a pretty common scenario: A single mother works at a large retail store. She has no health insurance; her children have state health care. Her income and schedule necessitate the purchase of inexpensive convenience food with poor nutritional value. Her kids are less healthy and get sick more often as a result. If her kids get sick too much, she misses too much work and loses her job. She uses credit cards to pay her bills while looking for another job, landing her in debt she can't pay down. Rinse. Repeat. It sounds like your response would be that all her problems are just that...her problems. I believe that I have a responsibility as a community member (and as someone whose kids are going to have her kids as neighbors) to make sure that American policy isn't exacerbating, or even creating, this scenario. And even if it wasn't, I'd still take her my garden overflow, because that's what neighbors do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 A single mother works at a large retail store. She has no health insurance; her children have state health care. Her income and schedule necessitate the purchase of inexpensive convenience food with poor nutritional value. Her kids are less healthy and get sick more often as a result. If her kids get sick too much, she misses too much work and loses her job. She uses credit cards to pay her bills while looking for another job, landing her in debt she can't pay down. Rinse. Repeat. *nodding* I saw this when I operated my daycare; I lived it to an extent. It's a perpetuating cycle and does not speak at all to the character of the people caught in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 And it makes me sick to my stomach to see how many hours he has to work to equal the cost of just ONE bottle of glucose strips that doesn't even last a week. And yes, there's been times in the past we've had to choose to not buy them or buy food or at least do use them very sparingly. It's not right. It's not healthy. It's not reasonable. And there's no excuse for it to be that way. Wow. It doesn't get any clearer than that, does it? :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 hmm. good for you, not neccesdsarily true for everyone else. I cannot feed my family any healthier without paying a lot more money. Yeah $160 is about 1/4 of my grocery money. If I paid that today, I'd have to completely cut all groceries for a week and wait months to MAYBE see any return for the investment. Same goes for buying from a butcher, if I have several hundred dollars to by an entire freezer worth in one bulk buy, I'd get a deal - but I don't have that kind of money to spend on one major purchase. yes, some people have hectic schedules, but have the income to make it worth it and to afford the continue to eat well. The presumption here is that they can just move (many people right now can't get out of their mortgages to sell and even if they did - where woudl they move?) or could get a comparable job closer to home (right now many people cannot or it wouldn't pay diddly). Yes, we all make choices and can make different choices. But your presumption that people can just move, just get another job, just have a spouse stay home are all just that - presumption. Many people do evaluate their financial circumstances and find it would be flat out foolish to do those things. They need the income more than they need the whatever else at the time. Maybe when they got the job doing the commute it was the smartest thing at the time. Maybe it didn't require a 12 hour day when they started. Maybe gas wasn't so expensive or the job had better benefits or whatever. Then things change and they hope it's temporary so they stick with it. Many people stick with a job that's horrible and doesn't pay diddly because they need benefits for a family member. You toss a LOT of presumptions about people around. Are some just bad choices? Sure. But often what is a good choice today can be terrible tomorrow. Circumstances often change much faster than income. Again presumptive. Most people with different lives are choosing to take care of their families too. :confused: Are you saying my dh isn't? He works his bum off every day with a f/t and a p/t job to pay for a decent education, health care, a home for our kids in a decent area, for me to stay home. He gets little to no reward for it. We don't have family vacations or live in any way a toy laden comfy life. We have a nice life, but by no stretch are we having luxeries around here. And it makes me sick to my stomach to see how many hours he has to work to equal the cost of just ONE bottle of glucose strips that doesn't even last a week. And yes, there's been times in the past we've had to choose to not buy them or buy food or at least do use them very sparingly. It's not right. It's not healthy. It's not reasonable. And there's no excuse for it to be that way. I've said many times, there's NEVER going to be a cure for diabetics, esp type 1. It's way too big a cash cow for pharm companies. There's no way a cure could ever compete with the revenue they get every time my dh pricks his finger.:glare: I didn't say other's choice besides mine were wrong; just different. A choice is a choice. My point is that there are consequences for every single choice we make in life. And I think some people want the government to take care of them even though they could make better choices and take care of themselves. That's all I meant. I commend your dh. If more men felt as he did we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today. When we put out the "seed" money for raising our own food it comes from a tax return ususally. Sometimes it come from a bonus my dh recieved. If you can make that first initial expense it more than pays off in the long. Again, my main point today, in all my posts, is that there are natural consequences for all choices we make in life. We may not like all the consequences, but they are ours to bear. I think maybe I may not have made my point very well, sorry. I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Here's a pretty common scenario: A single mother works at a large retail store. She has no health insurance; her children have state health care. Her income and schedule necessitate the purchase of inexpensive convenience food with poor nutritional value. Her kids are less healthy and get sick more often as a result. If her kids get sick too much, she misses too much work and loses her job. She uses credit cards to pay her bills while looking for another job, landing her in debt she can't pay down. Rinse. Repeat. It sounds like your response would be that all her problems are just that...her problems. I believe that I have a responsibility as a community member (and as someone whose kids are going to have her kids as neighbors) to make sure that American policy isn't exacerbating, or even creating, this scenario. And even if it wasn't, I'd still take her my garden overflow, because that's what neighbors do. YES!!! Exactly my point! It's not the government's job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I totally support a nationalized system. It is fair. It would prevent many of the abuses we have now that increase costs. It would return the focus to prevention, where it needs to be. It would certainly not be perfect, but in my mind it is more just than what we have now. Health care is not a "good" or service in the same way that groceries and electronics or banking are and IMO should not be handled the same way economically. Our current system incentivizes the wrong things-getting sicker, staying longer in the hospital, having expensive procedures, and de-incentivizes preventive measures like mammography and pap smears that are known to save lives. It encourages people to gamble with their money, because they know that the state will pay for the cost of any catastrophic illness. They cut corners on preventive visits, because they are still expensive. It's all wrong. Good health care should provide each person with a minimum of reliable preventive care, rather than only pay the cost if they are sick and hospitalized for a week. Delivery of health care is economically more similar t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I didn't say other's choice besides mine were wrong; just different. A choice is a choice. My point is that there are consequences for every single choice we make in life. And I think some people want the government to take care of them even though they could make better choices and take care of themselves. That's all I meant. I commend your dh. If more men felt as he did we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today. When we put out the "seed" money for raising our own food it comes from a tax return ususally. Sometimes it come from a bonus my dh recieved. If you can make that first initial expense it more than pays off in the long. Again, my main point today, in all my posts, is that there are natural consequences for all choices we make in life. We may not like all the consequences, but they are ours to bear. I think maybe I may not have made my point very well, sorry. I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone. YES!!! Exactly my point! It's not the government's job. No, I didn't think you were saying you are better than anyone. I think you were presuming that bad consequences are always because of bad choices. This is not neccessarily true. Yes, we can all make choices for ourselves as best we are able to determine at the time. But we can't control our employer, becoming ill (for the most part), weather, crisis, car wrecks, birth defects, and basicly the world at large. The world does affect us! We are not islands to our selves. I'm not sure I understand this "it's not the gov'ts job" stance. In the United States, the gov't IS THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. (Or at least it is supposed to be, but that's a whole other thread!) I don't think it's the gov't job to take care of me or anyone else. But I DO think it is the job of all people, THE people, to pass laws and regulations that allow our people to care for the basic needs. I'm not asking for a new pair of pert boobs folks. Just a reasonably priced bottle of insulin and glucose test strips. And yes, I think it IS the job of the people, the republic, to regulate reasonable and ethical business practices. I am NOT for a national healthcare program. We aren't socialists and I don't want us to become that way. I'm also not for a total capitalist attitude where everyone is at the lack of mercy of everyone else. Either extreme is unhealthy for people and the economy. I have no issue with private enterprise. The problem we find ourselves in is that private entreprises are in the back pockets of too many areas of gov't. So rather than the governing elect, the people, regulating and monitoring as they should, we have private enterprises using those elect as paid puppets, or even flat out holding positions, which allows them to favor their businesses rather than adere to the law and they are in essance self-governing their ethical practices. We have lost hold of the check and balance process. By and large the gov't programs do not function more efficiently or more economicly than a private program, be it business or charity based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I find it really interesting the way you all feel about Universal health care. The USA seems to be pretty much the only western country without this. I have heard so many stories of huge health bills, astronomical insurance bills etc from friends in the USA that I feel completely blessed to be in a country with Universal Health Care. Our system in Australia uses (according to a Wiki article I just read) 8% of taxes. This includes a special levy that people pay of 1.5% of taxes. Our total tax bill is no where near 45% of wages, for people on a low wage it's more like 20% When we go to the doctor we pay $52 out of pocket and then get $35 back from Medicare. If I take the children to the specialist, I pay between $120 and $200 if I choose to go Private and avoid the waiting lists and I get about 80% of that back from Medicare. When I had kidney stones I chose to wait on the public list for surgery although I could have gone private and paid. I had to wait 5 months, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me since I had no symptoms whatsoever during that time and if I had had symptoms and ended up in hospital, my treatment would be free and immediate. Our health insurance policy which is optional, because we do have private care but useful from time to time is $160 a month for our family. I had my babies for nothing, pregnancy care is completely covered. People from Australia and NZ seldom go to the US for treatment. The times I have heard of it happening is for very specialised surgery that the populations here don't support an experienced team in that area. And if someone goes to the US we pay in full. People from third world countries also come here for treatment, just like they go to the US. To me that is part of being globally responsible, and nothing to do with the superiority of one system over another. Reality is 3rd world countries have less money for health care, sad but true. Having public health care here doesn't make people slovenly or not careful of their health. It doesn't take away personal responsibility or make people reliable on the government. I'm so glad that money will never be an issue I or anyone else here needs to worry about when they need medical attention, the ER is free. Our system certainly is not perfect, but based on my limited knowledge of my friends here and our health care experiences, and my friends in the US and their health care experiences. Well it has a lot to offer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 YES!!! Exactly my point! It's not the government's job. Yes and no. I absolutely hold the government responsible for watchdogging. It needs to be done, and done well. And I believe that deregulating health care would make it much more difficult to watchdog effectively. That would drastically increase the number of people living like the woman in my example. Part of the reason I got bent out of shape about the comment I was responding to in my post is that I believe we're outsourcing our middle class. It's our own wealthy doing it, and I think the "It's your problem, I'm making MY money," attitude is poor justification. I'm not suggesting that being smart, hardworking or innovative requires one to carry everybody else; I'm talking about being so self-centered as to resent the implication that one should think of one's community when deciding whether it's enough to be rich, or whether one needs to be filthy stinking rich. So yes, I do believe in helping my neighbor...but I also think my neighbor and I shouldn't be struggling to feed ourselves and patting ourselves on the back for being neighborly while somebody else laughs all the way to the bank. I think deregulating is a very, very bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Yes and no. I absolutely hold the government responsible for watchdogging. It needs to be done, and done well. And I believe that deregulating health care would make it much more difficult to watchdog effectively. That would drastically increase the number of people living like the woman in my example. I agree to an extent. I believe that there should be some regulation, but I also beleive we should use common sense. Malpractice in this country is ridiculous. Some doctor's are dangerous and some patients are just looking for a paycheck. Part of the reason I got bent out of shape about the comment I was responding to in my post is that I believe we're outsourcing our middle class. It's our own wealthy doing it, and I think the "It's your problem, I'm making MY money," attitude is poor justification. I'm not suggesting that being smart, hardworking or innovative requires one to carry everybody else; I'm talking about being so self-centered as to resent the implication that one should think of one's community when deciding whether it's enough to be rich, or whether one needs to be filthy stinking rich. So yes, I do believe in helping my neighbor...but I also think my neighbor and I shouldn't be struggling to feed ourselves and patting ourselves on the back for being neighborly while somebody else laughs all the way to the bank. I think deregulating is a very, very bad idea. But what you just said is contradictory. You don't believe that the rich should have to take care of the poor but you don't believe people should be poor while other's are rich. I think people should help each other, but I don't think the government should make people help each other. I also don't think the government should decide how much of one person's money goes to another person. I had one client that was very rich. She gave to charity, paid higher taxes. Yes, she had alot of high-end stuff but she would help you if you asked. I think the moral thing to do is to help people, but the government should not mandate it. No, I didn't think you were saying you are better than anyone.I think you were presuming that bad consequences are always because of bad choices. This is not neccessarily true. Yes, we can all make choices for ourselves as best we are able to determine at the time. But we can't control our employer, becoming ill (for the most part), weather, crisis, car wrecks, birth defects, and basicly the world at large. The world does affect us! We are not islands to our selves. That's exactly where I was having a problem communicating. I'm not assuming that bad consequences are always the result of bad choices. Things happen that we have no control over. What I've been trying to convey is that people don't always take responsibility for the consequences of their choices, but expect the government to take care of them. If I over-eat and become obese that is because I over-ate. I shouldn't expect the government to foot the bill for the health issues that ensue. If my work and home schedule is such that I eat alot of fast food and I suffer the ill effects of that I shouldn't expect the government to pay for those medical costs. I did it to myself. America is seriously lacking in personal responsibility. We are always blaming someone else for whatever we don't like in our lives. I'm not sure I understand this "it's not the gov'ts job" stance. In the United States, the gov't IS THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. (Or at least it is supposed to be, but that's a whole other thread!) I don't think it's the gov't job to take care of me or anyone else. But I DO think it is the job of all people, THE people, to pass laws and regulations that allow our people to care for the basic needs. I'm not asking for a new pair of pert boobs folks. Just a reasonably priced bottle of insulin and glucose test strips. And yes, I think it IS the job of the people, the republic, to regulate reasonable and ethical business practices. Does the above response clear up my "it's not the gov'ts job" attitude? And you know that we don't have the representative government that we claim to. The politicians are making deals and alot of them do the best they can, but it's a corrupt system. I agree, let's not go there. Except to say, if we really believe they are messing so many other things up why would we want to give them more control over our healthcare or welfare systems? By and large the gov't programs do not function more efficiently or more economicly than a private program, be it business or charity based. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We need THE PEOPLE to start caring enough to make a change. I find it really interesting the way you all feel about Universal health care. The USA seems to be pretty much the only western country without this. I have heard so many stories of huge health bills, astronomical insurance bills etc from friends in the USA that I feel completely blessed to be in a country with Universal Health Care. Our system in Australia uses (according to a Wiki article I just read) 8% of taxes. This includes a special levy that people pay of 1.5% of taxes. Our total tax bill is no where near 45% of wages, for people on a low wage it's more like 20% When we go to the doctor we pay $52 out of pocket and then get $35 back from Medicare. If I take the children to the specialist, I pay between $120 and $200 if I choose to go Private and avoid the waiting lists and I get about 80% of that back from Medicare. When I had kidney stones I chose to wait on the public list for surgery although I could have gone private and paid. I had to wait 5 months, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me since I had no symptoms whatsoever during that time and if I had had symptoms and ended up in hospital, my treatment would be free and immediate. Our health insurance policy which is optional, because we do have private care but useful from time to time is $160 a month for our family. I had my babies for nothing, pregnancy care is completely covered. People from Australia and NZ seldom go to the US for treatment. The times I have heard of it happening is for very specialised surgery that the populations here don't support an experienced team in that area. And if someone goes to the US we pay in full. People from third world countries also come here for treatment, just like they go to the US. To me that is part of being globally responsible, and nothing to do with the superiority of one system over another. Reality is 3rd world countries have less money for health care, sad but true. Having public health care here doesn't make people slovenly or not careful of their health. It doesn't take away personal responsibility or make people reliable on the government. I'm so glad that money will never be an issue I or anyone else here needs to worry about when they need medical attention, the ER is free. Our system certainly is not perfect, but based on my limited knowledge of my friends here and our health care experiences, and my friends in the US and their health care experiences. Well it has a lot to offer! I love the way this works for Australia. I just don't think it would work for America because of our government. Right now, Dh pays 17% to taxes on his income. Can you imagine the increase for universal healthcare? Ultimately, I think we should take care of our families and help each other as we can. I hope this post clarifies some of the things I've been saying. Sometimes it's so hard to convey your ideas on a message board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Here's an example of global economic citizenship, as opposed to opportunism. Here's another. Back on the topic of what we should or could do to fix health care, here are some interesting links. Washington Post article about Massachusetts health care I know not everyone likes DailyKos, but this is a pretty extensive article with lots of links. McCain on health care reform Obama on health care reform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Obviously, you're one of the people who needs to check out an ICU. :001_smile: Jen No, thank you. ;) I am sure that there are cases (perhaps a lot) of people being kept alive through expensive, artificial means. I just wanted to point out, since you mentioned feeding tubes, that IMO feeding tubes are not extraordinary care. They are necessary and humane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I find that attitude offensive. Everyone could and can buy toys from China, but China's toys were not safe, and we were poorly informed by others, quite deliberately. No one wants toxic toys, nor do they want corporations and the government to look the other way...unless they themselves benefit from selling toxic toys. If you can afford to buy expensive toys made responsibly, good for you. The idea that Americans who can't are somehow at fault when their children are poisoned is reprehensible. And if you have plastic toys in your house AT ALL and have not done very careful checking, odds are you have toxic toys. From China. I will look for an article, but I can tell you that American telephone companies have actively deceived callers by training their Indian employees to assume American identities. The issue is not as simple as choosing, nor is it an issue of the quality of help available. The issue is that deregulation has in many instances allowed greedy individuals and corporations to benefit themselves at the expense of average Americans, in this case by outsourcing jobs so that they don't have to pay any American's idea of a living wage. Small government may work when scoundrels have to live next door to the people they affect with their decisions, but it is not working in the era of globalization. There is potential for disaster, so I find your attitude cavalier. A quote from an interesting paper: The fastest growing industry in our nation, last I checked, was retail. Raise your hand if you've ever used the words "retail" and "vocation" in the same sentence. Is that really what we want for these kids we are so carefully homeschooling? We are becoming a nation of consumers, and that's a dangerous thing to be. It's not that there aren't people in this country who are excellent at their trade, it's that thoughtless or unscrupulous Americans who want what they want when they want it for as cheap as they can get it are failing to take the long view. I consider this "me first" attitude, whether it arises from pride in privilege or just plain apathy, to be extremely poor citizenship. I've had my patriotism challenged for not supporting a military action I felt was needlessly endangering American soldiers, but no one ever seems to question this kind of anti-American behavior. Here's a pretty common scenario: A single mother works at a large retail store. She has no health insurance; her children have state health care. Her income and schedule necessitate the purchase of inexpensive convenience food with poor nutritional value. Her kids are less healthy and get sick more often as a result. If her kids get sick too much, she misses too much work and loses her job. She uses credit cards to pay her bills while looking for another job, landing her in debt she can't pay down. Rinse. Repeat. It sounds like your response would be that all her problems are just that...her problems. I believe that I have a responsibility as a community member (and as someone whose kids are going to have her kids as neighbors) to make sure that American policy isn't exacerbating, or even creating, this scenario. And even if it wasn't, I'd still take her my garden overflow, because that's what neighbors do. I do not support companies lying to the public. That is fraud. It is a crime. And the gov should charge people when they commit crimes. As the OP wasn't asking about legal issues, but response was based on law abiding companies. So toys that claim to have no more than x amount of lead would not have more than x amount of lead. Toys that made no such claims might. Same for tech support. And I would indeed say that in the scenario you provided, her problems are her problems. I will address this two fold. Firstly, how she could have prevented her problems. She could have gotten a more skilled job, which would have paid better and given her better benefits. Healthy food is often cheaper than junk food. Fruits and veggies cost less than fast food. She could have used birth control and not had children she couldn't afford. She could have not gotten bills she couldn't afford, or at least used a low interest line of credit instead of a high interest credit card. Now, while her problems are her fault, they are not her kid's fault, which is why I donate every year to charities that benefit low income children. I am more than happy to help kids break out of the cycle of poverty. But, let's now look at another scenario. There is a single mother working 18 hour days at a brick factory. Her husband is dead from aids because of lack of sexual education. She cannot even afford 80 cent vaccines for her children. Her children work by her side so they can get even a morsel of food to eat that day. They have no chance of school, of anything beyond their current life. By restricting the exportation of jobs, this is the life you are condeming them to. When you have open door immigration policies, and the exportation of portable jobs, you give amazing new opportunities to those who would consider your scenario a dream come true. In today's day and age, that woman can work jobs never before possible. She can gold farm in WOW, she can do bookkeeping for a US small business, she can sell handicrafts on ebay, she can rent out a cell phone in her village, etc... Technology makes all these things possible. People can move her and work for salaries orders of magnitude higher than their current wage. The cost of labour here drops, and the cost of products drops. Overall, the world is a far richer place with more of everything to go around. I hope that helps you understand my point of view a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 But what you just said is contradictory. You don't believe that the rich should have to take care of the poor but you don't believe people should be poor while other's are rich. I think people should help each other, but I don't think the government should make people help each other. I also don't think the government should decide how much of one person's money goes to another person. I had one client that was very rich. She gave to charity, paid higher taxes. Yes, she had alot of high-end stuff but she would help you if you asked. I think the moral thing to do is to help people, but the government should not mandate it. I didn't say I don't believe some people should be poor while others are rich. What I'm saying is that it is perfectly right and legitimate for a country to determine what constitutes fair pay and fair business practices, and to then take steps to ensure that American companies don't do end runs around these laws. To use a health care specific example, health insurance companies are supposed to process and address claims. However, many of us have had to chase insurance companies and resubmit claims that were allegedly "lost", often repeatedly. Having a policy, understood or written, of depositing initial claims in the circular file is illegal, with good reason. Additionally, where foreign manufacturing and labor is appropriate, safeguards are necessary to ensure that we aren't receiving contaminated or unsafe products, and that companies aren't engaging in exploitative practices...doing so ought to violate our foreign policy anyway. I'm not talking about mandating morality, but rather regulating practices that are against the interests of Americans, or that treat international community members in ways that Americans could not be legally treated. I'm not saying businesses are responsible for making people "un-poor", I'm saying that, when they engage in practices that tend to exacerbate poverty, such as usury, deliberately creating unnavigable systems designed to prevent people from getting help, union busting, charging exorbitant prices in isolated and impoverished neighborhoods, maintaining lousy illness policies for employees, etc., somebody needs to step in. What good is having a government at all if they can't at least slap the wrists of such people? There are a lot more people agitating for small government than there are publicly sticking up for the little guy, so I don't feel confident that there'd be a groundswell of civic responsibility if the government took a powder. Edited to say that yes, I am talking about morality. I don't know why I'm ducking that. The woman in my scenario has to contend with an employer and credit card companies who were engaging in predatory practices, and that's routine. Health care companies do it, too. A major reason the mortgage crisis happened is because Americans (who, admittedly, should have read the fine print and trusted their own budgets) simply did not understand why a bank would loan them money if it didn't believe they could pay it back. We were heavily pressured by both our realtor and our mortgage broker to take a loan for more than we could afford, and we finally got pretty aggressive about it and confronted the broker with our spreadsheet, and told him we didn't want to hear about it any more. Regardless of what these home buyers should have been doing, did the mortgage brokers know, beyond a doubt, that they were taking advantage of people in order to take part in speculative investing? Absolutely, yes they did. I defy you to justify that. Their higher power can deal with them later, but I expect my government to shut them down, NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 But my dh works for the company for a wage, how he lives his life outside of work and his health is none of their business. My husband is a designer and the company he works for created the marketing materials for a health incentives program for a company in the NE. Employees were monetarily rewarded for taking small steps toward improving their health. Due to the program, the company saved over a million in health insurance costs after the first year of the program. The health incentives program was a big part of the reason why they were able to keep ALL their jobs in the US and not send them overseas. How can that be bad? No one got into the employee's personal lives. It was all voluntary. No one said, "If you don't do this you're fired." No one said, "If you don't do this, you won't be promoted." No one said, "You're a big fat slob who needs to lose some weight." People were simply rewarded with some money for each of the preventive steps they took. I agree that health coverage should not be the responsibilityof the employer. But right now it is, and I think that the incentive program was a great way of working with what the company had. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 No, thank you. ;) I am sure that there are cases (perhaps a lot) of people being kept alive through expensive, artificial means. I just wanted to point out, since you mentioned feeding tubes, that IMO feeding tubes are not extraordinary care. They are necessary and humane.[/quote] Depending upon your point of view... If you're not going to walk out of the hospital and have any sort of life, why is it "humane?" If you wouldn't keep a cat alive under the same circumstances, what's "humane?" It is that wing of conservatism that believes that ALL life, no matter the quality, has to be maintained that scares the absolute wits out of people like me. It's the primary reason why I ran from conservative Christianity as soon as my brain got me the heck outta there. Jen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shell in SC Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 There are alternatives; they are called Urgent Care centers. Some are private and some are owned by hospitals (like the one I work for.) FYI, we don't collect payment up front. I wish the ones around here were like that. . .our hospital owned UC center collects up front, and I think that the privately owned does if you don't have insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 No, thank you. ;) I am sure that there are cases (perhaps a lot) of people being kept alive through expensive, artificial means. I just wanted to point out, since you mentioned feeding tubes, that IMO feeding tubes are not extraordinary care. They are necessary and humane.[/quote] Depending upon your point of view... If you're not going to walk out of the hospital and have any sort of life, why is it "humane?" If you wouldn't keep a cat alive under the same circumstances, what's "humane?" It is that wing of conservatism that believes that ALL life, no matter the quality, has to be maintained that scares the absolute wits out of people like me. It's the primary reason why I ran from conservative Christianity as soon as my brain got me the heck outta there. Jen One cats do not get "HUMANe" care because they are not human. Second, food and water are basic life needs for EVERYONE. They are not extrodinary care. Saying that is not the same as saying that all life as to be maintained, regardless of quality. For example, he** would freeze before I'd deprive my dh of a feeding tube, but that doesn't mean I'd insist on giving him every drug and surgery to extend his life. Third, not YOU, not the GOV'T, not some hospital employee - NONE of them have ANY rights to tell another person their quality of life isn't good enough to be worth letting continue. If YOU don't want to live under certain circumstances, then make a will and make it known. But I have absolutely zero desire to see anyone tell me, my dh, my kids that we don't deserve to have food and water given to us because THEY think we're better off dead than living with what they think isn't a good enough quality fo life. OT.. back to regularly scheduled discussion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 No, thank you. ;) I am sure that there are cases (perhaps a lot) of people being kept alive through expensive, artificial means. I just wanted to point out, since you mentioned feeding tubes, that IMO feeding tubes are not extraordinary care. They are necessary and humane.[/quote] Depending upon your point of view... If you're not going to walk out of the hospital and have any sort of life, why is it "humane?" If you wouldn't keep a cat alive under the same circumstances, what's "humane?" It is that wing of conservatism that believes that ALL life, no matter the quality, has to be maintained that scares the absolute wits out of people like me. It's the primary reason why I ran from conservative Christianity as soon as my brain got me the heck outta there. Jen If food is withheld from a sick person, then they are dying of starvation, not their illness. It is not humane (characterized by kindness, mercy, and compassion) to let someone die of starvation when it is in one's power to feed them. I agree that sometimes extraordinary measures are taken that merely prolong someone's life, but food is not one of them. I am perplexed why you would be scared of people who believe life is sacred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Oh my gosh, really? See, I don't think that's worked worth a darn in any major industry. Well, I mean, it's worked for the CEOs and CFOs and the people who get kickbacks, but I think the rest of us are getting hosed. I think if we deregulate, in 20 years our kids will be selling kidneys to AntheKaiserGloboShield in order to get a strep test. Absolutely, I do. If you take competition/capitalism/incentives out of the equation, there goes the research and innovation! I don't care if the CFO's and CEO's make whopping amounts of money, as long as they're not stealing from shareholders. It takes a lot of energy, time and incredible ideas to run a multi-million/billion dollar company. More power to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 ooooh! I'll post a quickie before reading alll the replies and then come back and see what i need to add :) 1. America is about freedom, not perfection. If you don't have the opportunity to fail completely then you're not completely free. Right now, we really aren't free. 2. I don't mind the gvt offering a healthcare system, but I shouldn't have to pay into it if I want the freedom to opt out of it. ditto w/ social security. But i tend to subscribe to a Capitalist [as in Objectivist, not $$ lol] view of gvt services. i'l have to read all the replies this evening, so don't worry --if someone has already brought those up, i'll catch them tonight :D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I don't have any toxic toys from China, and I have had great tech support from India, and my job hasn't gone anywhere. I certainly hope you realize how fortunate your family is, and at the same time realize that other people haven't been that fortunate. If you don't trust toys made in China, don't buy them. But if someone else does want them, what's it your concern? It's my concern because some of those toys aren't safe and are toxic and were misrepresented. If you don't want tech support from India, then don't use a company who has tech support in India. Do you realize in the computer/technology market how hard and difficult it is to find any company that has local tech support. Some of the support I've received from India has been fine; quite often it's been less than satisfactory simply because I could not understand the person helping me. Not to mention the people I know who lost their $13 to $15/hr. phone support jobs to outsourcing to India and are now working for $7 to $9/hr. If your job went to overseas, then work for less, get a more skilled or service oriented job, or move overseas. Frankly, I find it hard to believe this attitude. Many people are working for less, have no health insurance and not able to make ends meet. Oh, but that's their fault because they aren't qualified for a more skilled job? The fact that they have a family to support and neither the time nor money to go back to school is their fault so they need to suck it up. Move overseas? Are you joking? My dh, after 28 years, lost his job due to outsourcing. He has been doing contract work off and on for the last couple years - usually without health insurance. The suggestion of moving overseas is insulting. He is skilled so telling him to get a more skilled job is insulting. Also, another facet to our situation is that he is 50 years old. The fact we've run into is that many companies would rather hire the young, new college graduate than a 50 year old man even though his experience and skills are greater. Service oriented job? Doing what? Starting in new at his age? Maybe I should suggest he become a carpenter? I find this attitude quite self-centered and self-serving. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I find that attitude offensive. Everyone could and can buy toys from China, but China's toys were not safe, and we were poorly informed by others, quite deliberately. No one wants toxic toys, nor do they want corporations and the government to look the other way...unless they themselves benefit from selling toxic toys. If you can afford to buy expensive toys made responsibly, good for you. The idea that Americans who can't are somehow at fault when their children are poisoned is reprehensible. And if you have plastic toys in your house AT ALL and have not done very careful checking, odds are you have toxic toys. From China. Thank you, Saille. You need some rep. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Absolutely, I do. If you take competition/capitalism/incentives out of the equation, there goes the research and innovation! I don't care if the CFO's and CEO's make whopping amounts of money, as long as they're not stealing from shareholders. It takes a lot of energy, time and incredible ideas to run a multi-million/billion dollar company. More power to them. What's the saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? If a corporation/CEO/CFO has massive amounts of money and little or no regulation/oversight, what is to stop them from being a danger to others? Why shouldn't they release under-researched medication to the masses? Why shouldn't they sell faulty products? They can use their money to grease palms and pave the way. I do, absolutely, mind the enormous pay discrepancy between CEOs and average workers. I mind because this is not a model where the scaling makes sense. If it were just an issue of a few bad apples who weren't allowing profits to trickle down proportionately, those companies would get bad reputations and the workforce would redistribute itself among companies with better policies. Eventually, those companies would have to change their practices in order to attract quality employees. Unfortunately, vast discrepancies in CEO pay are quite common, so there's nowhere to go. From an article in The Motley Fool: Even a quick glance at the bare IRS stats shows that CEOs have done remarkably well for themselves during a period when the average weekly wage for a non-supervisory laborer -- which is to say, 80% of all U.S. workers -- actually declined slightly, after adjusting for inflation and added benefits such as pensions and health insurance. A close look at more recent but less comprehensive data confirm that the discrepancy, if anything, is getting worse. In 1996, for example, corporate profits rose 11%, yet factory workers saw wages grow by just 3%, and white-collar workers experienced a 3.2% boost in salaries. These advances barely kept pace with inflation. Indeed, considering productivity gains, these increases were so modest that they help explain why the American economy is seeing so little real inflationary pressure even after six years of expansion. CEO pay, however, is a different story. While salaries increased far more modestly than in the past, salaries generally account for a smaller share of CEO compensation today than ever before. One analysis of 56 large U.S. companies, for example, showed that salary made up just 22% of a CEO's total compensation in 1996, versus 27% in 1995. As Business Week reported in April, the S&P 500 companies as a whole paid out performance bonuses that significantly sweetened executive pay packages, boosting cash compensation last year by 39% to $2.3 million. The real payoff for most chief executives, though, came from stock options, which accounted for 45% of total compensation versus 40% in 1995, according to some reports. Including all forms of compensation, the average CEO's pay soared 54% last year, to $5.78 million. Today, the average CEO makes about 209 times what the fulltime factory employee does. Depending upon what stats you use, that ratio amounts to an 8- to 10-fold expansion in executive pay relative to the rest of the workforce in just 25 years. More articles: Business Week Time I think that the "free enterprise over all" argument requires the citizenry itself to provide aggressive checks and balances, for its own protection. Unions arose for that very reason...but I don't know anyone who's espousing small government and deregulation who's pro-union. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 What's the saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? ======== I think that the "free enterprise over all" argument requires the citizenry itself to provide aggressive checks and balances, for its own protection. Unions arose for that very reason...but I don't know anyone who's espousing small government and deregulation who's pro-union. Why is that? ...and that's EXACTLY why I prefer a smaller gvt. Note that it's not "the most money corrupts absolutely" but *power.* It is that same power play in the unions that keep me from being pro-union. and i still haven't read the whole thread yet..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 in countries with socialized medicine because they are not well-compensated. This is simply not true. Comparative salaries for doctors in westernized countries, most of whom have socialized medicine, are very similar. In fact, primary care is less well compensated in the US than almost anywhere else. I want to point out that rationing happens here too. Just ask anyone who works in an inner city hospital ED. People with no insurance coverage, or who are underinsured, are funneled to charity hospitals who are compensated by the state (at a considerable lower rate than private insurance) for providing this care. It is not legal, but it happens every day. I would favor a system similar to that worked out in the past by the state of Oregon, which makes rationing explicit, and stipulates specifically which things are coverable by state insurance, and which aren't. They created a rank list of conditions, and set coverage each year at a level on the rank list, based on available funds. It was very effective in maintaining care for prevention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Frankly, I find it hard to believe this attitude. Many people are working for less, have no health insurance and not able to make ends meet. Oh, but that's their fault because they aren't qualified for a more skilled job? The fact that they have a family to support and neither the time nor money to go back to school is their fault so they need to suck it up. Move overseas? Are you joking? My dh, after 28 years, lost his job due to outsourcing. He has been doing contract work off and on for the last couple years - usually without health insurance. The suggestion of moving overseas is insulting. He is skilled so telling him to get a more skilled job is insulting. Also, another facet to our situation is that he is 50 years old. The fact we've run into is that many companies would rather hire the young, new college graduate than a 50 year old man even though his experience and skills are greater. Service oriented job? Doing what? Starting in new at his age? Maybe I should suggest he become a carpenter? I find this attitude quite self-centered and self-serving. Janet I really am sorry that you guys have had a rough go of it, but do you believe that the government should take care of you now? Are you saying that 50 year olds should just quit trying? That's a bit insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I really am sorry that you guys have had a rough go of it, but do you believe that the government should take care of you now? Are you saying that 50 year olds should just quit trying? That's a bit insulting. I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. But since you commented: where did I say the government was taking care of us? Where in the world did I say 50 year olds ought to quit trying??? Did I imply my husband quit trying??? You certainly made a lot of assumptions and read a lot into my post that wasn't there. As I stated, my dh has been doing contract work since his layoff. It is all he can find because most of the jobs in his field are leaving the US. I was responding to the comment that people who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing should go into the service industry or take a job overseas as though that were a relatively easy thing to do. My dh is a college graduate. He has experience in his field, white collar work, which has been sent overseas. But at the age of 50 it is not easy for a man to find work. That is simply the reality we are facing. It's also not an easy thing for a man of 50 to up and change careers; especially change careers to something in the service industry. And a job overseas? Seriously? I don't know of anyone from my dh's company that was offered a job overseas. The jobs were sent overseas to save money and hire cheaper labor. No, the government shouldn't be bailing out every individual who has lost their job. However, yes I do think the government has a responsibility to keep jobs in America which in turn helps the economy which in turn helps all citizens. We have always managed our money wisely, avoided debt and planned for the future. I've never asked the government for help, and thankfully, due to my dh's financial responsibility, I haven't had to. That doesn't mean I wouldn't if my children were hungry or without shelter. I don't have that much pride. I can easily see where at this point in time, due to the economic downtown and loss of jobs, through no fault of their own, there are people who truly need help. No, I'm not opposed to helping people out of a bad situation, either through personal charity or my taxes. I happen to be one of those that believe that by raising up the downtrodden, all of society is helped. I call it social justice. The attitude "well, my family hasn't been affected, my husband still has a job, life is fine for me, sorry you lost your job, McDonald's is hiring" is offensive. I certainly never asked for anyone's sympathy, and I don't need it. I never said, "Woe is me, life is horrible, it's not fair." I was commenting on what I consider a very narrow minded outlook. And as far as health care goes: I don't believe minimal, adequate health care should be dependent upon income. Again due to my belief in social justice and my pro-life stance. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. But since you commented: where did I say the government was taking care of us? Where in the world did I say 50 year olds ought to quit trying??? Did I imply my husband quit trying??? You certainly made a lot of assumptions and read a lot into my post that wasn't there. As I stated, my dh has been doing contract work since his layoff. It is all he can find because most of the jobs in his field are leaving the US. I was responding to the comment that people who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing should go into the service industry or take a job overseas as though that were a relatively easy thing to do. My dh is a college graduate. He has experience in his field, white collar work, which has been sent overseas. But at the age of 50 it is not easy for a man to find work. That is simply the reality we are facing. It's also not an easy thing for a man of 50 to up and change careers; especially change careers to something in the service industry. And a job overseas? Seriously? I don't know of anyone from my dh's company that was offered a job overseas. The jobs were sent overseas to save money and hire cheaper labor. No, the government shouldn't be bailing out every individual who has lost their job. However, yes I do think the government has a responsibility to keep jobs in America which in turn helps the economy which in turn helps all citizens. We have always managed our money wisely, avoided debt and planned for the future. I've never asked the government for help, and thankfully, due to my dh's financial responsibility, I haven't had to. That doesn't mean I wouldn't if my children were hungry or without shelter. I don't have that much pride. I can easily see where at this point in time, due to the economic downtown and loss of jobs, through no fault of their own, there are people who truly need help. No, I'm not opposed to helping people out of a bad situation, either through personal charity or my taxes. I happen to be one of those that believe that by raising up the downtrodden, all of society is helped. I call it social justice. The attitude "well, my family hasn't been affected, my husband still has a job, life is fine for me, sorry you lost your job, McDonald's is hiring" is offensive. I certainly never asked for anyone's sympathy, and I don't need it. I never said, "Woe is me, life is horrible, it's not fair." I was commenting on what I consider a very narrow minded outlook. And as far as health care goes: I don't believe minimal, adequate health care should be dependent upon income. Again due to my belief in social justice and my pro-life stance. Janet Thank you, you took my point. Your dh didn't quit trying. You are not depending on the government. You guys are taking care of your family. Why would working at McDonald's be offensive, even for a college grad? If it's the only work to be had so be it. The ultimate goal to keep a roof over the heads of your family and food in your bellies. Personal Responsibility...which your family has. Thanks to you and your wonderful dh for taking care of your family. FTR, I responded to you because I had something to say about what you said. Whoever neg. repped me for this post and forgot to leave your name please let me know what's offensive about this post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thank you, you took my point. Your dh didn't quit trying. You are not depending on the government. You guys are taking care of your family. Why would working at McDonald's be offensive, even for a college grad? If it's the only work to be had so be it. The ultimate goal to keep a roof over the heads of your family and food in your bellies. Personal Responsibility...which your family has. Thanks to you and your wonderful dh for taking care of your family. FTR, I responded to you because I had something to say about what you said. I'm not sure what you mean by saying I took your point. I understand your position, and I disagree. Again, I never said working at McDonald's is offensive, even for a college grad. What is offensive is someone sitting in their ivory tower where everything is fine saying to someone who has had the rug pulled out from under them, worried about how they're going to pay rent or buy food (unemployment doesn't cover it) let alone health care, my husband has his job, we're not wondering where our next house payment is going to come from, but I just saw a help wanted sign at McDonald's. Especially to the head of the family who might be responsible for 7 persons. If my husband were working at McDonald's we were would be looking for government assistance because there is no way minimum wage would feed a family nor keep a roof over our head. The tone was offensive and condescending. The opinion could have been stated differently. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I'm not sure what you mean by saying I took your point. I understand your position, and I disagree. Again, I never said working at McDonald's is offensive, even for a college grad. What is offensive is someone sitting in their ivory tower where everything is fine saying to someone who has had the rug pulled out from under them, worried about how they're going to pay rent or buy food (unemployment doesn't cover it) let alone health care, my husband has his job, we're not wondering where our next house payment is going to come from, but I just saw a help wanted sign at McDonald's. Especially to the head of the family who might be responsible for 7 persons. If my husband were working at McDonald's we were would be looking for government assistance because there is no way minimum wage would feed a family nor keep a roof over our head. The tone was offensive and condescending. The opinion could have been stated differently. Janet My point was that you are doing okay. Be thankful for that. You originally sounded like "woe is us" but then explained that your Dh was taking care of business and you guys were okay. I agree that people should show more sensitivity to those that are struggling. But I don't think, I don't think you were trying to imply, that just because someone is doing well they should be forced to give to someone who's not doing well. I've detected the undertone in this thread that people who have more should be forced to give to those who have less. I'm *not* saying you were saying that, but that's what I've been fighting against so hard in this thread. People who have more should help those who have less, BUT, they shouldn't be forced to help and the less fortunate should not expect it. ETA: Whoever neg. repped me for being spiteful here and forgot to leave your name. How is this spiteful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lighthouseacademy Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 A few people have called into question my assertion that proper diet and lifestyle would do wonders for the healthcare system. I don't believe that there is any incurable disease- only incurable people. They are incurable either because they are unwilling to change the things that created the condition, it is their time to die, or it is genetic as in a chromosomal defect etc like Down's Syndrom... Although, I have seen cerebral palsy manifested in the face GREATLY improved with diet changes and I know some who have seen even Down's Syndrom greatly improved through super nutrition. I believe that the body works, even when it appears to be broken or not working. I have seen it. In fact, I have witnessed such things as a whole chunk of a finger completely gone regrow including fingerprints and then go on to be indistinguishable from the rest of the finger. I have watched a 2 yr old with rheumatoid arthritis be cured- not just remission but truly cured with diet (not the RA diet and general protocols). I have an acquaintance who CURED her MS including getting out of a wheelchair and restoring her sight. I have personally cured my own asthma. I have seen cured tonsils that were chronically infected, filled with pus, and pitted without surgery. I have witnessed torn ligaments in an old man regrow and repair themselves without surgery and allow the old man to regain full mobility where there was none in the arm. I personally cured my own ovarian cyst within 2 weeks without the standard treatment of birth control pills. I nurtured my 2 month old through RSV during a BAD RSV because I knew how to care for her and nurse (both feeding and medically speaking) her through the illness. I have cured a severe double ear infection and sinus infection in myself naturally. I have seen diabetes aided if not cured by changes beyond those recommended by the AMA. I have seen a bad case of mastitis cleared before the doctor could get around to calling back (within 2 hours). I healed from 3 wisdom teeth extractions including a partial bony extraction with one dose of advil, because I was a little scared that pain might hit even though I was not in pain, and almost no bruising or swelling by using herbs much to the dismay of the surgeon who wanted me to take vicodin. The list goes on. What I say is not standard opinion and I know most people will think I am nuts and I am being cold and unfeeling. I am not in any way cold and unfeeling. My heart breaks at the suffering that so many endure and feel that they must endure. My heart breaks for those who have been told there is no alternative or who are scared to or choose not to search for an alternative (I am not saying that is anyone here). I believe that doctors are important- for emergency situations. I believe that knowledge of our God given plants and medicines around us is important and would save us millions and insure health care for all. Will this happen instantly? Nope. But steps could be made. Sadly there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding SAFE herbs and proper nutrition. There are too many conflicts of interest in medicine (not among the doctors who truly are trying to do the best they can but higher up in the law makers, pharmaceutical giants, and heads of the various organizations). There are too many studies that conclude one thing when the evidence is obviously the opposite of the conclusion. There are far too many studies done designed to prove a desired point rather than to further true health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 As a self-employed family I would like to have more open communication with a doctor about their fees. I know they can't always tell what they'll be doing before you come in, but an outline of fees and an estimate when you come for an intial consult would be nice. :iagree: The dentists and vets we have been to are still this way. I don't know why doctors aren't. Another thing that irks me as we have had very high deductibles the past few years and self-pay for many services-- patients who pay out of pocket should be charged what the insurance companies, on average, are paying. Not some overinflated charge that no insurance co. actually pays. It seems so messed up to me that I, who pay on time at each visit, therefore costing the doctor no overhead for billing, paperwork, and waiting 3-6 months for the insurance company to make adjustments and pay-- have to pay MORE than the greedy insurance company that inserts many extra levels of hassle into the process, and then discounts the fee in a huge way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Quote: Originally Posted by Academy of Jedi Arts I have always wondered about possibly setting up programs to pay for medical education the way there are programs to pay for college education to become a teacher. Someone gets a grant to pay for med school, and in return they have to serve 4 years in a free clinic for low income patients. There are so many pros and cons to such a thing I don;t exactly know if I'm totally for it or against it, but it's an interesting thing to think about. There already are programs like this in existence, debt forgiveness programs. I don't know how widespread they are, but there are some on Indian reservations or other low income areas, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.