the truth about health care costs and our economy (not cattle related)

I work in health care and watch with disgust all the current posturing... thought this article was very accurate..........................  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&em

that article is subscription based.

basically it says rationing is a good thing.  i've mentioned this guy before.  he's the chair of ethics at princeton i think and he is educating your kids.  he peer reviews grants and is involved in a lot of things.

to me, the health care debate can be summed up with the following.

how we will we compel people to become doctors?  current doctors are going to be hit from both sides, reduced reimbursement from medicare and higher taxes.  some will just retire, some won't enter the field, then we will bring in foreign doctors.  at some point, it will crash.  there won't be enough doctors and at that point, it truly will be like the dmv.

Government mandated healthcare won't work. Just like Pell grants and student loans haven't controlled cost in education. Those programs have cheapened a high school education to the point that it is worthless. But we sure spend a lot of taxpayers money anyway. While more people have gone to college the actual quality of education in high schools has drop dramatically. To the point that a college degree is now worth what a high school degree was in the 1950's. You need a masters or phd to be ahead. So has the government really made a better education more affordable? No.

So why will health care be any different? It won't. Health care costs were in line with overall inflation until the late 1960's. That's when government first stuck it's nose into the situation. Ever since then health care cost have been spiraling out in to the stratosphere. Also in the 80's (I believe) the government removed the health care sector when it figures inflation. That way when they figured cost of living increase for Social Security recipients the government could save a little while push the increase cost on to seniors.

While people think government health care is the answer, it is only one way to do it. (the worst way) It just happens to be the easy way for most. The best way would be for a free market to work hard at providing better cost structures and affordability to the consumer. Which could be done if government got out of the way. Governments role (state government that is) would be to oversee (regulate) but not be a consumer or provider. The problem here is that this alternative requires an involved consumer educated about his choices and responsible for his decisions.

Health care is a privilege not a right.

JMHO
SD
<alien>

On page 879-880, the bill states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    "shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics."


On page 881-882 the bill states:

    "In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds." americans? or children of private sector employees as the public sector, after factoring in retirement, make 42% more than the average public sector employee.  and you thought being a public employee relegated you to a poor paying job.


On page 883 the bill states:

    "The Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate or participate in an established primary care residency training program, which may include-(A) planning and developing curricula; (B) recruitment and training of residents; and (C) retention of faculty."


On page 884-885 the bill states:


    "In awarding grants and contracts . . . the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training . . . individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds . . . ."


On page 887-889 the bill states that the

        "Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program for oral health professionals, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those professionals who plan to work in or teach general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, or dental hygiene, to establish, maintain, or improve academic administrative units (including departments, divisions, or other appropriate units) in the specialties of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, to operate a loan repayment program for full-time faculty in a program of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry."


On page 889-890 the bill states:

    "In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."


On page 908-909 the bill states:  "The Secretary shall award grants and contracts to eligible entities" to do the same things for the field of public health as the Secretary can do for dentistry.

On page 909 the bill states:

    "In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."


Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups", the Democrats' policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats' racial preference program, all of the "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

please don't read the health care bill.  what you don't know won't hurt you.  after all. your representative or obama (even admitting as much in a press conference) hasn't read it either.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

here's an opening sentence of this fraud.

IN GENERAL.—The purpose of this division
7 is to provide affordable, quality health care for all
8 Americans and reduce the growth in health care
9 spending.

then why did congress and the administration exempt themselves from this?  and why are they fining people who don't sign up and why aren't they allowing new applicants to current providers after the bill becomes law?  that last one guarantees private insurance goes out of business when current enrollees die.

because you the voter can not be concerned with this.

here's another funny truth.

• The New Haven fire department, according to press accounts, is 43% black and Latino. Or, if you prefer the term of art, 43% of the fire department is "minority."

• The New York Times editorial board, according to the information provided by The New York Times, is -- wait for it -- 12% black and Latino. Or, again, 12 % "minority" if you prefer the term.

same with many liberal establishments.  amazing how liberals are so liberal with imposing their view on others, but not themselves.  just like the health care bill. 

shhh.  please.

Knabe , I guess you missed my point, I would NOT sell a quarter section I have worked all my life to pay off to delay my death 6 months.. I know that I have a great place to go and although I am not ready to go until my maker calls me I won't rob my children's inheritance by balking at the end... let me tell you , when you are spending someone else's money it is a lot easier than when you are spending the kid's future... In my experience the people who weren't blessed to be able to contribute much are usually the most worried about getting their share... I think they probably worry that the system might "short" them

I forgot to say that just like I wouldn't think it is right to bankrupt my family over such nonsense I think it reprehensible that we are bankrupting our country over these give away programs

jbzdad said:

I forgot to say that just like I wouldn't think it is right to bankrupt my family over such nonsense I think it reprehensible that we are bankrupting our country over these give away programs

Click to expand...

ditto.  i am for raising expectations and the economic climate to distribute opportunity, rather than protection and stagnation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOvncXY0X4w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F07%2F22%2Fvideo-nadler-wont-use-obamacare-if-it-passes%2F&feature=player_embedded


no upstanding elected official would ever abide by programs they pass.

Also leave aside the inevitable huge cost of any such program. The administration estimates $1.5 trillion over 10 years with no increase in the deficit. But no one should take that seriously. When it comes to projecting future costs, these guys may as well be reading chicken entrails. In 1965, hospitalization coverage under Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual price tag was $66 billion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html

no one can predict the future cost of anything.  that's a fact.

I couldnt stay away from this one!   First, I am pm-ing justintime to weigh in on this one!

Since I just got back from the UK, alot of my conversations with them about national health are still fresh in my head.

Simply, ask someone from Canada or the UK what they think of nationalized health.   The answer will not be positive.

I sat on a train with a fascinating man who had a PHD in Range Management , now doing IT consulting between England and France.

He hates national health and feels that he HAS to carry expensive private insurance to supplement national health in order to protect his family.   He also added that he pays 55 percent of his gross salary on taxes and national health fees.   

Hmmmm.  What are we solving.?   Not much.

My opinion is leave it alone!  Leave us the right to go to the Mayo Clinic or Cancer Centers of America if we want to.  Don't have us end up on a waiting list of 6 months for surgery.

I work in the health care  industry.  FIX MEDICAID AND MEDICARE AND LEAVE the rest ALONE.

I URGE YOU TO EMAIL YOUR LEGISLATORS IF YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY AND WANT A CHOICE!

Cowz, this thread has kinda taken a life of its own,Read The Article
, the only way to "fix" medicare and medicade is to limit the care.... I know it is tough to believe but I think it is true

jbzdad said:

Cowz, this thread has kinda taken a life of its own,Read The Article
, the only way to "fix" medicare and medicade is to limit the care.... I know it is tough to believe but I think it is true

Click to expand...

so,... you know the guy who wrote the article sees no ethical dilemma with killing babies up to 2 years old for organs and counseling old people to die early.  that is rationing health care.

even the current bill being proposed has counseling for old people with of course a mandatory visit from someone from the federal government.  think about that.  we have to hire all those counselors.  how much is that going to cost if they get lifetime healthcare, of course exempted from the one imposed by the government, they get a retirement.

no one must be allowed to make money and spend it on themselves.

in one sense, we have rationing now.  if you have a co-pay, which some people are outraged by, this is a form of rationing, as people just won't go to the doctor for every little thing.

the key is to not create an entire infrastructure of a nanny state and incentivise people to take care of themselves.  we aren't even approaching that.  we let 1 million people in legally every year, supposedly because we need them.  if we rationed immigration, and rationed other things, like english only documentation not only for government, but companies as well so you don't need 10 languages to operate a chain saw because people are supposed to speak english.

there are so many ways to save money by RATIONING GOVERNMENT.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

Ø      The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.

Ø      Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.

Ø      Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.

Ø      Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.

what single individuals seems to profit the most from this mandate.  kleiner perkins and al gore who is on their board.

From article:

"President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken. It is, he has said, by far the most significant driver of America’s long-term debt and deficits. It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 26 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours."

I still say thats better than paying 60% income taxes like canada does, with their socialized healthcare system.  The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

All I know....is that the government could screw up a wet dream if given the chance.

simtal said:

From article:

"President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken. It is, he has said, by far the most significant driver of America’s long-term debt and deficits. (wrong, social security, the war on poverty, departments that won't go away after either failing or serving their purpose etc) It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 26 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours." (medicare management costs exceed that of the private sector.  costs are "recovered" through higher rates because doctors are underreimbursed for medicare and pass them on to private sector, otherwise, why are there more and more doctors refusing medicare patients.  gene burns on KGO vehemently denies this and says he has authority because he's on medicare, but he also has private insurance.)

I still say thats better than paying 60% income taxes like canada does, with their socialized healthcare system.  The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

Click to expand...

immigration is also a driver as the government tries to stay ahead through building mandates as well, incentives to drive property taxes etc.  doctors are also a problem as well as they overbill to pay for other things.  fraud at all levels has been a lower priority for some reason.

i haven't looked this over too closely yet.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-are-now-in-early-stages-of.html

The annual pace of new home sales is now 342,000, a whopping 32.8% below the rate in May 2008. At the current sales pace, there is 10.2 months worth of inventory overhang sitting on the market, dragging down prices and encouraging potential buyers to wait it out as prices deflate...

they are not "dragging" down prices.  everything is being done under the sun to stop the CORRECT price of housing, and that is slowing down reallocation.

the below are not my quotes.

When he  (obama) talked at length, though, he made some pretty interesting mistakes, such as this:

The one commitment that I’ve been clear about is I don’t want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy.

And so, if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle class families, I’m going to be opposed to that because I think there are better ideas to do it.

Actually, until that statement, Obama had clearly told the middle class that their taxes would go down, not up.  Now he’s saying that he won’t support a system primarily funded by the middle class, which seems to imply that he won’t mind one that taxes the middle class to provide some of the funding.  And Obama wouldn’t even commit to a veto — just that he would “be opposed to that” approach.