Obama's Dead Souls

BrightSoul wrote:...snip just for brevity not disagreement...

Greed wins and we're not going to find a way out so long as our belief system enshrines selfish behavior. Egads this country needs a Teddy Roosevelt so fricking bad right now its crazy. We need a Trust Buster back in office.

I would disagree with what we need in specifics.

The People get what the people want. Simple fact. The best and the worst of the USA.

We have enshrined to a rapidly escalating rate for the 60 years or so that we want something for nothing (could be argued for 80 or 100 years easily). We won the war now we want to get paid for it. Which morphed into "I deserve ...". Most do not give real credit to the fact that the only way we got out of the depression and into the glory days of the USA was WW2. They repayment was the rest of the world didn't have a lot of manufacturing and we did. Once they got going, they caught up and "we" deserve stuff.

Look at the the TV Ads notice how many lawyer commercials there are. Like lotteries a way to get money without doing a constructive thing or expending a bit of effort.

There is a reason I a not gun toting person is for dueling and the 2nd Amendment. That comment was not flippant.

It all boils down to personal responsibility, IMO. Which the US has mostly forgotten except in rural areas. Where for the most part is not, "There should be a law" but what do I have to do to succeed right now.

If you want a people to work to improve themselves and make the rest work you need a government and a system that is less concerned with the exceptions and more a larger case. Life is not fair. Another fact. Trying to make it fair through government action based on the exceptions results in the opposite. Which is what we are dealing with now. How did we get from the glorious '50's to now?

Just like we elected a president that promised "hope and change", a new transparency in Washington and for the working people. Who has been the big winners? The top 1%. Look at the numbers. Not saying President Bush did any better. If he wanted to make the education system better best bet was going back to what worked before there was a Department of Education. No child left behind was another stupid policy at the national level.

Yet somehow the American people have swallowed it up to now. Including vilifying someone who gets his head pounded into a sidewalk shooting the guy who is going it and instigated the whole deal. It wasn't the shootee's fault, he was only a 13 year old 130 pound, ignoring that he was now 17 and bigger than the guy he was beating up.

If you are looking for a simple answer it does not exist it has never existed except in Plato's (and his intellectual descendent's) demented dreams.

Love a lot of what TR did but he wasn't all that especially saddling us with President Wilson. Them robber barons did a lot that they don't get credit for. Heck Henry Ford (even though I can't stand his politics and attitudes) had a bigger positive impact on the ordinary people.

Have fun,
T2M

PS That quote wasn't from one of my friends, as such, just something that someone posted to a similar conversation on the bar that I quoted after getting his permission. I have no personal experience with the Canadian system just watching people like Namelessfly mentioned fleeing to get decent care. Which my sister who used to work in a cardiac unit in West Palm Beach also mentioned.

I can enjoy the series even though I do not necessarily support everything Manticore stands for. The epic fecal storm that I provoked some years back by pointing out that the Honor Harrington series is a metaphor for the conflict between capitalism and socialism certainly demonstrates that there are a lot of liberals who like Weber's fiction even if they do not support the SKM. How many of you are supportive of a monarchy that exerts actual political power than just provides scandalous entertainment?

Monarchy is an excellent form of government when you have a highly competent monarch like Elizabeth in charge. The problem is in that in the real world monarchs are seldom that talented. And even when you get an exceptionally talented monarch his/her heir is seldom as skilled. Just look at the history of any monarchy in the world.

BrightSoul wrote:Why is it so hard to determine what a minimum package would require and then leave it to industry and states to figure out a way to ensure it happens.

Because deciding what that minimum is should be something the individual does, perhaps? Having the feds do it just doesn't work. Obamacare anyone?

Rationing healthcare using ANY agent other than an individual's choice is tantamount to using death panels. While you may trust such systems, me and my MS afflicted wife do not.

Why is it so hard to determine what a minimum package would require and then leave it to industry and states to figure out a way to ensure it happens. There has been next to no effort to even establish this basic an understanding. Every time someone wants to explore what we need, not how to implement it, the pundits of the various options spend a fortune to so obscure the issue that the bulk of us have no idea what they are talking about.

Would be nice. Then maybe the low level Bronze plans would be something more affordable. As it is people are going without insurance because the minimum plan isn't minimum enough.

The feeling I'm getting is that the public in general feels that a bare bones absolute minimum catastrophic plan should cover:

1. Major accidents such as car accidents but not minor accidents such as a broken arm.
2. Treatment of major diseases such as cancer but not cover minor diseases
3. Maternity coverage only for women of childbearing age
4. Not cover most medicines, only cover very expensive ones such as those used to treat cancer
5. Not cover most physical therapy, only cover extensive physical therapy such as that following a stroke
6. Not cover mental illness
7. Not cover preventative care
8. Not cover vision or dental
9. Not cover addiction treatment

Basically cover things that would force you into bankruptcy and nothing else.

We complain here about our health system, but the government provided base level is affordable, at 1.5% of taxable income for most people.
It covers nearly all that is listed plus more. It doesn't cover dental unless it is a medical dental problem that affects the body overall. Our medicines are about $30 a prescription, unless you are a pensioner when they are $5.90. Elective surgery has long waiting lists, an example is hip surgery that means waiting times of years to replace a painful eroded hip joint, but immediate surgery for a broken hip. I can't see why you'd restrict maternity cover to only women of childbearing age as nature has done that already.
Medicare generally doesn't cover cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons, and generally you don't have a choice of surgeon or venue for operations.

On top of that you can have various levels of private paid care. Our top level one for a couple costs $220 a month and covers everything.

It covers nearly all that is listed plus more. It doesn't cover dental unless it is a medical dental problem that affects the body overall. Our medicines are about $30 a prescription, unless you are a pensioner when they are $5.90. Elective surgery has long waiting lists, an example is hip surgery that means waiting times of years to replace a painful eroded hip joint, but immediate surgery for a broken hip. I can't see why you'd restrict maternity cover to only women of childbearing age as nature has done that already. Medicare generally doesn't cover cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons, and generally you don't have a choice of surgeon or venue for operations.

That is the type of coverage you'd want for good insurance. But for people who can't afford it, what is the absolutely bare minimum, must have or my financial life will be destroyed insurance? Frankly given the rates they are charging on these policies it's cheaper to pay for a broken arm out of pocket than to pay for an insurance policy which covers broken arms.

I pulled up the Mass Obamacare rates and for the lowest level policy it is $725/month for a family plan which almost no doctors accept or $1000/month for a family plan accepted by most doctors with a $2000 individual/ $4000 family deductible. So basically to get a doctor you are spending out of pocket $14000 before the plan kicks in at all. Even when it kicks in there are significant co-pays etc. So this is why people would rather have a catastrophic only policy which costs less than half that and pay for broken bones etc out of pocket.

biochem wrote:

It covers nearly all that is listed plus more. It doesn't cover dental unless it is a medical dental problem that affects the body overall. Our medicines are about $30 a prescription, unless you are a pensioner when they are $5.90. Elective surgery has long waiting lists, an example is hip surgery that means waiting times of years to replace a painful eroded hip joint, but immediate surgery for a broken hip. I can't see why you'd restrict maternity cover to only women of childbearing age as nature has done that already. Medicare generally doesn't cover cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons, and generally you don't have a choice of surgeon or venue for operations.

That is the type of coverage you'd want for good insurance. But for people who can't afford it, what is the absolutely bare minimum, must have or my financial life will be destroyed insurance? Frankly given the rates they are charging on these policies it's cheaper to pay for a broken arm out of pocket than to pay for an insurance policy which covers broken arms.

I pulled up the Mass Obamacare rates and for the lowest level policy it is $725/month for a family plan which almost no doctors accept or $1000/month for a family plan accepted by most doctors with a $2000 individual/ $4000 family deductible. So basically to get a doctor you are spending out of pocket $14000 before the plan kicks in at all. Even when it kicks in there are significant co-pays etc. So this is why people would rather have a catastrophic only policy which costs less than half that and pay for broken bones etc out of pocket.

I must have been a bit vague. That medical cover is what is available now for all citizens, permanent residents, and visitors from countries with reciprocal agreements. Thus a life time welfare recipient who was born here is entitled already regardless of having never paid tax or any insurance premiums. This minimum level (much better than catastrophic only) is paid from the 1.5% levy on most taxable incomes, so it is affordable. Possibly it is more efficient here (and in UK, NZ etc) because it has been long established, we have a strong national government, and various insurance leeches aren't involved along the way.

Possibly it is more efficient here (and in UK, NZ etc) because it has been long established, we have a strong national government, and various insurance leeches aren't involved along the way.

As we keep saying, Obamacare is not a single payer system. It is a Frankenstein monster and an expensive one at that.

I thought that I would post this article with the comparative data n healthcare

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ ... asets.html

Government expenditures in the US arealready comparAble to most "civilized countries" (civilized = castrated?).

The difference is that the US has much greater private expenditures which Obamacare seeks to reduce and/or redirect.

PeterZ wrote:...snip...

It is this type of one size fits all balderdash that increases costs. Much better to let the states decide what requirements are for their residents. The feds should use their interstate commerce authority to enable selling insurance across state lines. Yes, individual states can set standards that their residents require. The states cannot prohibit out of state companies from selling policies that meet those requirements.

Snipped to just address this point.

As someone who remembers regionally limited banks and thinks this was a good thing, not too big to fail. If we allow them to sell across lines then how do we stop them from getting to big to fail.

This question has been bugging me for a long time. Much more intensely since this whole topic came up here. It may be related to how my antiquated understanding of how insurance companies work. Insurer takes the premium collected invests it to make more money than they are going to pay out.

Again thanks in advance,
T2M