Free "Sex-Change" Surgeries
http://oregonmag.com/BarberSexChange809.html (http://oregonmag.com/BarberSexChange809.html)
8/4/09
August 4, 2009, Washington, DC – When asked by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) whether President Obama's proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) admitted that it will require "any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate." It now appears that the plan's "medically appropriate" umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined. In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic "gender reassignment" surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.
where do I sign up?
No thanks. I'd rather be able to choose my own surgeon than wait on a list for years to be told who will be doing my procedure.
Quote from: Mister on August 04, 2009, 05:44:01 PM
No thanks. I'd rather be able to choose my own surgeon than wait on a list for years to be told who will be doing my procedure.
You would still have that option.
Oh yeah, "cosmetic"! What a crock. Sometimes I wish I could let these clueless people live our life for a month or so. Let's see them call it cosmetic after that.
Julie
Quote from: Julie Marie on August 04, 2009, 11:03:02 PM
Oh yeah, "cosmetic"! What a crock. Sometimes I wish I could let these clueless people live our life for a month or so. Let's see them call it cosmetic after that.
Julie
I'd still call it cosmetic because it's not life threatening...
Quote from: Heartwood on August 04, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
I'd still call it cosmetic because it's not life threatening...
Without it many would rather die. Isn't that life threatening?
Just give me the money and I will show the government how to save money on MtF SRS. Ok it wouldn't help the economy in the US, but they can make it up with $600 toilet seats for Air Force One.
Janet
I wonder at these tactics. if ObamaCare is a bad idea, there are a lot of more practical and common ways to point out the flaws instead of getting on this subject.
This seems to me to be a direct appeal to peoples base fears or bigotries or whatever to marshal those emotions against the plan.
I have no beef with it being opposed (I don't think it will work my own self) but this is weak sauce as an attack.
Plus, I find it strikingly hard to believe that we'd be covered anyway.
That said, if it is going to pass anyway, I certainly hope I'm wrong. Especially if they can get hair removal covered too!
None of us who are now in transition will be covered because it would classified as a "pre-existing condition".
If they really want to do this correctly, then you have to be naturalized or native born. Illegals will be banned from having the new health program. Or just give everyone a credit or a stimulus check. And don't take it away because one owes back taxes, child support or some other stupid reason. Just "Jerry Maguire" the damn check.
Janet
Single payer health care is the only way to go. The USA has a lower child mortality rate than some third world nations. It's crap. Find a solution. And Laura, it's not like if you got sick now, without a job, that anyone would treat you, or are you OK with that?
I am totally against single payer health care but if it must be, I agree that only citizens should be allowed to use it as they are the ones paying into it.
Post Merge: August 05, 2009, 12:27:01 AM
"To force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital 'sex-change' mutilation is unconscionable."
I don't know how they figure it will facilitate gender confusion nor do I think any of us would consider it mutilation. I think infant circumcision is more of mutilation and current insurance companies cover that.
Also , it isn't like it is against all americans conscience. The author has a definite bigoted view.
Quote from: Heartwood on August 04, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
I'd still call it cosmetic because it's not life threatening...
Then you have no idea what it's like being transsexual.
Julie
It most definitely is life threatening with some or there would not be suicide hotlines for TG/TS persons. Orin Hatch was mentioned and it reminded me that the University of Utah Medical Center does free liver transplants since they need the practice. Why not GRS?
OHSU here is a teaching hospital with ties to the University of Oregon Medical School. Dr. Meltzer use to be associated with the hospital. I wonder if they still have a service there?
Would I want to have a student practicing on me? That would depend on the teacher was and the results. But if it was free? Maybe, but then again you get what you pay for.
Janet
Quote from: LordKAT on August 05, 2009, 12:19:49 AM
I am totally against single payer health care but if it must be, I agree that only citizens should be allowed to use it as they are the ones paying into it.
what's it like to be so wealthy that you don't have to worry about health care costs?
and yea, lets blame the illegals some more. what about children and elderly and the unemployed that aren't working? they aren't paying into the system either, should we prevent them from having healthcare too? illegals still pay income taxes and local taxes for the most part, they aren't exactly the drain that people make them out to be.
I'm sorry, I don't really mean this particularly at you, but I hear this argument a lot around here, and believe me it's based a lot on hate and prejudice. it's one of those issues that really gets to me.
Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2009, 11:40:29 PM
Single payer health care is the only way to go. The USA has a lower child mortality rate than some third world nations. It's crap. Find a solution. And Laura, it's not like if you got sick now, without a job, that anyone would treat you, or are you OK with that?
It's not legal for them to turn me away. I probably would get the least possible care under the law, and I'd owe a helluvalot of money barring charity.
But treatment would occur.
I know this for a fact because it has happened in my family before (under different circumstances) and in a non-life threatening situation.
beth,
I am not wealthy by any means, I live in a friends basement and make min wage. I would still rather pay my own way than have any single payer plan. Children are covered under their parents, elderly have payed into the system already and some still do. As to the unemployed, if no illegal immigrants then less unemployment and as it is illegal for them to work in the US, the chances of them paying taxes and having it recorded instead of getting cash under the table are slim.
Why give them more incentive to come here illegally.
Quote from: Genevieve Swann on August 05, 2009, 07:53:41 AM
It most definitely is life threatening with some or there would not be suicide hotlines for TG/TS persons. Orin Hatch was mentioned and it reminded me that the University of Utah Medical Center does free liver transplants since they need the practice. Why not GRS?
'practice' and 'grs' together sounds a little scary. :laugh:
*sigh*
Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.
And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.
Quote from: LordKAT on August 05, 2009, 04:35:10 PM
beth,
I am not wealthy by any means, I live in a friends basement and make min wage. I would still rather pay my own way than have any single payer plan. Children are covered under their parents, elderly have payed into the system already and some still do. As to the unemployed, if no illegal immigrants then less unemployment and as it is illegal for them to work in the US, the chances of them paying taxes and having it recorded instead of getting cash under the table are slim.
Why give them more incentive to come here illegally.
oh, cool. I just assumed you were wealthy since you are fine with paying thousands of dollars a year in health care costs before you even see a doctor. my mistake.
I bet your employer that can only afford to pay you minimum wage doesn't even offer health benifits, and if they do, how would you afford your premiums on minimum wage? under a single payer system, small business wouldn't be as burdened with providing health care plans to their employees either.
am I correct in assuming that since you have a minimum wage job, that you are just on your parents health care plan? your parents have to pay quite the premium to insure you (assuming they are covered through their work) since most employers only contribute for the employee and you are responsible with paying the full premium for your spouse and children. you are the prime example of WHY we need a single payer system in this country.
and maybe they don't have fake IDs in your area, but trust me - if the "illegal aliens" were only working jobs under the table, you would have nothing to worry about.
heartwood: what about reconstructive breast surgery? it's purely cosmetic as well, and yet it's already covered by most insurance. I also doubt that the women getting reconstructive breast surgery consider it cosmetic either.
Actually, Obama is pushing to force all insurance to cover any pre-existing condition, so if TS issues are actually covered <since there accepted by the APA> then we will all be covered if he can push it through.
GO OBAMA!!!
I couldn't be on my parents health plan if they had one. I am old enough to have grandchildren. I do have health insurance but it does not pay for my trans issues. If you think that you will not being paying in thousands of dollars under single payer health plan, think again. countries with national health plans can have taxes of up to 75% of average income. I don't know about you but I could not live on only 1/4 of my paycheck as I am barely doing it now. There are far better strategies for reducing the cost of health care including limiting malpractice costs and forcing insurance to cover "pre-existing conditions, as well as covering any "medically necessary" procedures. I don not mean necessarily "life threatening" when I say medically necessary.
I think having a national health insurance available is a good idea but I do not agree with government having access to even more of my private life nor control over what procedures I have done.
Please think of asking questions before making grossly incorrect assumptions when it comes to me or my life.
More later when I can sort my thoughts to words better.
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 05:06:39 PM
*sigh*
Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.
And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.
A bit of "discomfert"? (what is "discomfert"?) So, having the wrong genitals is something roughly equivalent in seriousness to combination skin? Gosh, thanks for clearing that up!
Quote from: LordKAT on August 05, 2009, 09:43:57 PM
I couldn't be on my parents health plan if they had one. I am old enough to have grandchildren. I do have health insurance but it does not pay for my trans issues. If you think that you will not being paying in thousands of dollars under single payer health plan, think again. countries with national health plans can have taxes of up to 75% of average income. I don't know about you but I could not live on only 1/4 of my paycheck as I am barely doing it now. There are far better strategies for reducing the cost of health care including limiting malpractice costs and forcing insurance to cover "pre-existing conditions, as well as covering any "medically necessary" procedures. I don not mean necessarily "life threatening" when I say medically necessary.
I think having a national health insurance available is a good idea but I do not agree with government having access to even more of my private life nor control over what procedures I have done.
Please think of asking questions before making grossly incorrect assumptions when it comes to me or my life.
More later when I can sort my thoughts to words better.
i'm sorry for the generalizations, but I stand by my assertion that you would benifit from a single payer system (unless you are already a part of one through VA, medicare or government provided group plans?)
what countries tax 75% of the middle classes incomes? you are OK with private companies having access to the same private data? at least the government is under extremely tight constraints and oversight when it comes to data harvesting.
again, i'm sorry for singling you out, your post just sorta struck a nerve and had to respond. you got 2 of my hot button topics :)
it might be best if we take this to PM if you want to continue the discussion since we are sorta getting off topic.
Quote from: beth~chella on August 05, 2009, 08:58:28 PMheartwood: what about reconstructive breast surgery? it's purely cosmetic as well, and yet it's already covered by most insurance. I also doubt that the women getting reconstructive breast surgery consider it cosmetic either.
Well, it is cosmetic, right? If that's covered, I don't see why SRS can't be covered as well. In fact, It would be wonderful. I hate my stuff, and I don't think I'd have enough money for removing it in the future without aid.
Quote from: Stealthgrrl on August 05, 2009, 10:23:06 PM
A bit of "discomfert"? (what is "discomfert"?) So, having the wrong genitals is something roughly equivalent in seriousness to combination skin? Gosh, thanks for clearing that up!
Okay.
One, Don't pick on my spelling. How immature. You know what I meant, I just made a minor spelling error. Geez.
Two, If combination skin is as important to you as wrong genitals, then they are equally serious. However, most people consider the surgery of SRS to be much more important to combination skin. Getting either done is cosmetic, it's just one is more important to most then the other. ⌐_⌐
Three, No need to get so snobbish. It's not like SRS being a cosmetic surgery is a personal insult to you.
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 05:06:39 PM
*sigh*
Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.
And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.
We often have tumors removed.
Also, you can live with depression yet we prescribe pills. You can live with erectile dysfunction, but we offer pills (at a high cost no less). You can live without hormones, but we provide them.
You can live without a leg or arm, but we offer prosthetics. They will even put in a fake testicle if you lose one, or a fake breast implant.
I fail to see a difference here.
It is a quality of life issue, even the AMA is now agreeing we should have easier access to the things need.
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 05, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
We often have tumors removed.
Also, you can live with depression yet we prescribe pills. You can live with erectile dysfunction, but we offer pills (at a high cost no less). You can live without hormones, but we provide them.
You can live without a leg or arm, but we offer prosthetics. They will even put in a fake testicle if you lose one, or a fake breast implant.
I fail to see a difference here.
It is a quality of life issue, even the AMA is now agreeing we should have easier access to the things need.
I guess that's true, in a way.
So would you say plastic surgery is neccesary? After all, some people think that they are just too ugly and they need it.
Maybe we have no right to tell others what is neccesary and what is not... hmm...
(And fake testes? Why would you want them in the first place? I sure as heck wouldn't miss mine... must be one of those guy things that I'll never understand...)
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 11:10:29 PM
So would you say plastic surgery is neccesary? After all, some people think that they are just too ugly and they need it.
it's simple. there is a clear distinction between elective cosmetic surgeries (nose job, boob jobs, lipo, face lifts, etc...) and cosmetic surgeries that correct some type of medical problem (burn victims, reconstructive breast surgery, birth defects, GRS). if a doctor refers you for the surgery, it should be covered IMO.
Quote from: beth~chella on August 05, 2009, 11:16:41 PM
it's simple. there is a clear distinction between elective cosmetic surgeries (nose job, boob jobs, lipo, face lifts, etc...) and cosmetic surgeries that correct some type of medical problem (burn victims, reconstructive breast surgery, birth defects, GRS). if a doctor refers you for the surgery, it should be covered IMO.
...
Well, the only difference I can really see is that a doctor refers you.
But W/E.
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 11:18:30 PM
...
Well, the only difference I can really see is that a doctor refers you.
But W/E.
and on those 2 points we agree :)
W/E
The false assumption here is that if the current system isthe question, that single payer is the answer.
In point of fact, the current government run single payer systems cannot, despite many restrictions on care, control costs.
We spent a couple of years on medicaid - my kids still are - and my wife's anti-depressent, the only one that's in a different class and the one that doesn't have serious adverse side effects, isn't covered....on the dental side, for another example, Medicaid pays for ONe thing for an adult - extraction - over the course of the time I was in college, I lost maybe 4 or 5 teeth that would otherwise have been filled because of the restrictions on what they paid for.
the examples of such restrictions are legion.
YET Medicaid in our state is the source of a budget crisis in the legislature EVERY year because expenses exceed budget EVERY year.
THAT's what a single payer system gets you
(and I won't go into how you can lose everything you own to the state if you go into a nurseing home on Medicaid's dime)
So let's dispense with the notion that the ONLY solution to the current set of issues (which, by the way, are considerably overstated for various reasons) is single payer.
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 05:06:39 PM
*sigh*
Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.
And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.
Since it's obvious you have no clue what it's like living with gender dysphoria serious enough that you are driven to physically change genders let me clue you in.
When you feel you no longer want to live because you can't stand living in your birth gender, that's a problem.
When you take a knife to your wrist because you can't stand living in your birth gender, that's a problem.
When your life is in a state of paralysis because you can't stand living in your birth gender, that's a problem.
When GRS solves these issues, that's medical treatment at its finest.
Now I'll grant you that living with your birth genitals won't kill you but the psychological stress can cause deep depression and that can ultimately lead to death.
So go out there and keep spreading misinformation that GRS is not medically necessary and therefore should not be covered by insurance because TO YOU it's not life threatening.
Thanks for the support!
Julie
I'm sorry you and your family were on medicaid, Laura, but I would like to clear a few things up. First, that is a program for indigent people. It is a welfare program that provides the absolute basic, last resort health care. There is no comparison to a single payer program. You would have to use the Medicare program for that comparison. Medicare has a higher satisfaction rating than any private major medical insurance program in the US. It is a single payer program covering about 96 % of everyone over 65 years old. While I don't know of any anti-depressants that don't have the potential for serious side effects (been on them and researching for 8years), major medical policies have allowed and disallowed drugs also. My effexor was moved from an approved drug to non-approved while I was using it. Generally such changes are made based on costs and on availability of substitutes. Long term nursing care isn't covered under medicare, except under very restrictive basis. It is covered under medicaid-again, an indigent program. Yes, you have to give up much of what you own so that you are INDIGENT. It you don't want to do that, you could get a long term care (LTC) policy that co-ordinates with medicaid to cover it, or cover it yourself.
One of my jobs is to purchase the medical insurance for the company. Last year we were hit with a 57% increase because of someones wife who had cancer. A family insurance (Aetna) cost went to $2,450. ...A Month. I changed it to a less feature rich policy, but a family is still $1,550 at Cigna. And make no mistake- our employees may be making some decisions with their doctors, but I chose which doctors they can pick from and the Insurance Company decides which procedures and drugs that they will ultimately pay for. Employees in America have merely the illusion of medical freedom. Have I bored everyone yet?
Quote from: Cindy Stephens on August 06, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
I'm sorry you and your family were on medicaid, Laura, but I would like to clear a few things up. First, that is a program for indigent people. It is a welfare program that provides the absolute basic, last resort health care.
I agree with that and am not ashamed to say so. but it does so not out of lack of concern for the health of the recipiant - but for budgetary reasons.
QuoteThere is no comparison to a single payer program. You would have to use the Medicare program for that comparison. Medicare has a higher satisfaction rating than any private major medical insurance program in the US. It is a single payer program covering about 96 % of everyone over 65 years old.
Yes, and observers and experts across the political spectrum agree that it is financially untenable, and every 8-10 years it gets temporarily patched up and then it goes south financially again.
How does such an unsound financial model ADD millions of new recipients?
Quote
While I don't know of any anti-depressants that don't have the potential for serious side effects (been on them and researching for 8years), major medical policies have allowed and disallowed drugs also.[/qh of course.QuoteMy effexor was moved from an approved drug to non-approved while I was using it. Generally such changes are made based on costs and on availability of substitutes.
Agreed. Which was the point - cost issues drive care. the illusion created on behalf of government health care is that if we'll only go to that system everyone will get the best care.
That turns out to be no more true of government run health care than it is of private insurance. for cost reasons.
QuoteLong term nursing care isn't covered under medicare, except under very restrictive basis. It is covered under medicaid-again, an indigent program. Yes, you have to give up much of what you own so that you are INDIGENT. It you don't want to do that, you could get a long term care (LTC) policy that co-ordinates with medicaid to cover it, or cover it yourself.
Yes, but being indigent does nothing to change the fact that the system struggles to cover the cost for a VERY limited segment of the population.
In point of fact, the main #1 factor in rising health care cost is treatment of the aged. I saw a referance to a study that said something like half of all medicare spending went to people in their last year of life.
The most efficient way to bring health care costs under control, frankly, is to let the aged die more quickly. Government bean counters have no incentive to spend extraordinary amounts to keep those people alive when the system is too expensive (as it will be)
YES, medicaid is for indigent people NOW - but when we are all on a single payer program, the care will be "one size fits all" - you will get the same level of care as I do, no matter if I am indigent and you are pulling down a half mil a year.
Quote
One of my jobs is to purchase the medical insurance for the company. Last year we were hit with a 57% increase because of someones wife who had cancer. A family insurance (Aetna) cost went to $2,450. ...A Month. I changed it to a less feature rich policy, but a family is still $1,550 at Cigna. And make no mistake- our employees may be making some decisions with their doctors, but I chose which doctors they can pick from and the Insurance Company decides which procedures and drugs that they will ultimately pay for. Employees in America have merely the illusion of medical freedom. Have I bored everyone yet?
I do not dispute that for one second - but the issues you cite here DON'T get BETTER with a single payer government run system, they get WORSE.
And, by the way, I DON'T like the current system and I agree it's a burden on small business. I'm just cautious that the proposed solution is worse than the problem.
Please be aware that the current system is untenable. Health care costs are rising at double digit rates. Last year we changed providers, increased employee contributions, and decreased raises. We are a large construction company and can no longer complete effectively against companies that do not provide health insurance. As it is, about $1500 a year/ employee of our costs is directly from cost shifting of uninsured peoples' expenses to those with insurance.
A single payer system, for at least the basic services, cuts out 10% of waste, profit and inefficiency. Look at the published payout ratios of large commercial health insurers. It runs around 85-89%, Medicare is vastly more efficient with a 1% overhead and a 99% payout ratio. The only people calling the plan free or the "best" care, are people against it. In most western countries with single payer systems, private insurance for a higher level of care (private room, tv) is available. But you aren't going to be turned away for lack of it. The current thinking is that 22,000 American deaths/year are directly caused by lack of insurance. And some of those are of our sisters, who because of the stigma attached to us, have health insurance at rates far lower than the general public. (from an excellent study of income, job prospects of transgenders in the San Francisco area.) Lets have care for everyone, decide on what is "the best health care", and make informed decisions on how to pay for it.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdpnow.com%2Fi%2Fsmileys%2Fapplause.gif&hash=dd839e226667d5a9c3e7b2f5542620b4b2817f54)
excellent
Quote from: LordKAT on August 05, 2009, 09:43:57 PM
I couldn't be on my parents health plan if they had one. I am old enough to have grandchildren. I do have health insurance but it does not pay for my trans issues.
And what will you do when you do have something serious and they decide your payments are no longer worth keeping you on their plan. Or you have something happen that isn't covered.
Having insurance, doesn't protect you. Insurance is like gambling, the house always wins. There are tons in this country who, while they had insurance, it wouldn't pay for treatments and they end up losing their homes and filing bankruptcy. When questioned by congress about this, and whether they would stop this practice if things stayed as they are, the insurance companies without batting an eye said they would continue to do this to people. They don't have your best interest at heart, if you think they do, you are foolish. They have entire divisions setup just to deny coverage for as much as possible.
Also, since you make minimum wage, you would not be paying more for the coverage you have under any plan undertaken by congress. You really can't tax the poor too much more than they already do. Why you think you would lose another quarter of your pay is silly.
Post Merge: August 06, 2009, 07:39:10 PM
For those saying a single payer system will make things worse...
First off, many of us have ZERO coverage, so worse is pretty much impossible.
Second, why is our infant mortality rate that of a 3rd world nation. We do have the best medical care AVAILABLE. Could it be that most people cannot afford access to it?
Doesn't work? It sure seems to work quite will in countries that have it. Is the Canadian, U.K. or Australian system perfect? No, but at least you know you won't be homeless because you broke a leg. Also, while people in those countries complain about long waits, ummm, have you visited an emergency room lately? As a child I remember 8 hour waits.
Of course it will run out of money. That is how government works. If you don't spend it all, you will get less next year, every government agency knows this. So you always spend every dollar you are given. What if this year was a fluke and you needed less, next year could be bad, and now you have even less than you normally would.
By the way, compare the price of a hospital bed for the night, and then look at the price of sex change surgeries... They are certainly not going to bankrupt the system by giving a few people surgery. Compared to what is spent overall, it will be pennies. In fact it costs Canadians 16cents per year, per person to provide the surgery. You can probably find 16cents in your car under the seat or in the ashtray.
Not silly to know I would lose pay. When the company has to cut costs to pay more for insurance, jobs go, Unemployed is less then 1/4 of my paycheck, not more. As to losing my house and having medical not paid for, your speaking to the choir.
QuotePlease be aware that the current system is untenable.
I am.
QuoteA single payer system, for at least the basic services, cuts out 10% of waste, profit and inefficiency. Look at the published payout ratios of large commercial health insurers. It runs around 85-89%, Medicare is vastly more efficient with a 1% overhead and a 99% payout ratio.
According to?
QuoteThe only people calling the plan free or the "best" care, are people against it.
the LAST thing I'm calling government health care is "best" and I know of no major voice against it who is.
Quote
But you aren't going to be turned away for lack of it.
no one is turned away now.
Quote
The current thinking is that 22,000 American deaths/year are directly caused by lack of insurance.
that "current thinking" probably comes from the same people who define the number of uninsured Americans is all people who spent even one day in the previous year uncovered as opposed to the number of people uncovered over the long term - which is a MUCH smaller group.
It also implies that said death rate will be lower. in point of fact, what's more likely to happen is that you will have MORE deaths under single payer, but those deaths willbe old people that the bean counters consider a poor investment and it will be impossible to prove they wouldn't have died anyway.
It may be true that a person or a family can ethically decide that expensive care shouldn't be rendered to an elderly patient, but it's scary when you government decides you are not as worthy of care as a younger recipient.
Quote
Lets have care for everyone
We do have care for everyone - what we don't have is
coverage for everyone, which is a different thing.
Quote
First off, many of us have ZERO coverage, so worse is pretty much impossible.
To repeat - zero coverage is NOT zero care.
Quote
They don't have your best interest at heart, if you think they do, you are foolish.
Neither do politicians.
QuoteThey have entire divisions setup just to deny coverage for as much as possible.
so does medicaid and disability.Anyone who's ever applied for Disability (a government administered plan of course) knows that almost everyone is denied on the first application because the government knows most will give up and go away - including many who actually are disabled - upon the first denial. the only people who get it try over and over again.
So let's not make the mistake of thinking that a government run health care system will be more compassionate and less likely to ration care than private entities, because that too would be foolish.
QuoteYou really can't tax the poor too much more than they already do
If you mean direct taxation, they DON'T tax the poor AT ALL on the federal level. so I'm not sure what this sentence means. A family of four can make it to almost $30K in income before they pay a dime - more if they are diligent to take advantage of deductions.
I've paid a lot of taxes in my life but I've never once had a federal income tax obligation since I got married. All my taxes have been indirect.
Quote
Second, why is our infant mortality rate that of a 3rd world nation. We do have the best medical care AVAILABLE. Could it be that most people cannot afford access to it?
Nope. Because it's illegal to turn away those who can't pay, as you can find posted on a big sign in any emergency room.
Further, why do people plenty smart enough to know that correlation is not causation try to win points by citing the IMR as
proof that people lack access to health care?
Quote
As a child I remember 8 hour waits.
How does that relate to people who die as they wait MONTHS for a needed procedure in the UK and other places? Among many other complaints.
Quote
No, but at least you know you won't be homeless because you broke a leg.
Who is? I find that pretty hard to believe.
Quote
Of course it will run out of money. That is how government works...
which is precisely WHY it's a bad idea for it to be on the government's dime or at least under there control.
Quote
They are certainly not going to bankrupt the system by giving a few people surgery. Compared to what is spent overall, it will be pennies. In fact it costs Canadians 16cents per year, per person to provide the surgery. You can probably find 16cents in your car under the seat or in the ashtray.
I don't disagree here. Citing the cost of GRS in this debate is a weak tactic, logically, and an appeal to emotion not reason. I certainly disapprove of that argument even though I find single-payer untenable.
it probably bears stating here what I DO think needs to be done, not just what I'm against.
I'm not, by the way, against government action. and I do favor ideas which would take the obligation of providing health care completely off the small (and large) business if they so choose.
what I favor is Medical savings accounts, established and funded by tax dollars but spent by individuals with mechanisms built in to incentivize smart spending. I'm not economist enough to know what the funding level should be, and perhaps it would need to be phased in but I would favor it for ALL, absorbing the current government medical spending on current programs.
In essence, for all routine medical expenses, you would make your purchase out of this account, and you would have incentive to apply market forces to your purchases.
In conjunction with that would be a catastrophic care insurance policy, federally backed, which would cover the relatively small percentage of all people who face the staggering costs of cancer treatment or heart disease or whatever.
Over time, as the balance in the individual accounts grew, the services which needed to be insured would be only those which would be the source of the horror stories we hear about the current system.
You would have to find the gaps, to be sure, where a patch would be needed (for instance, people already nearing retirement age are going to need more spending than younger people no matter how you fund it).
BUT, the bottom line is that when you shop for your medical care like you shop for a new home or car or furniture, then there is incentive for you to make the best buy and incentive for providers to offer the best deal - in theory it should have a much better shot at containing costs than single payer.
so, of course, MSA's are anethema to left wing politicians - why? Because if YOU are making the decisions, government has less CONTROL over you and THAT my friends is what they WANT, not to "take care of you"
For the record, I don't defend corporations. they operate on a greed motive rather than a power motive but that doesn't make it more noble. there's no upside for a big corporation to have power over people, but there is upside in increasing the bottom line.
The difference is, in my view, that when you are empowered to be a smart shopper, then you have a weapon against there greed motive - you pit your self interest against there self interest.
where's your weapon against government power (in any field - pick an issue that you sympathize with the anti-government position such as pacifism or being against the CP or being pro-choice: what's your weapon against government power once government has acquired the power?)
and yes, I mean government and politicians in general - left OR right wing. They are both threats, just in different areas.
there's no upside for a big corporation to have power over people, but there is upside in increasing the bottom line.
In a democratically based nation, there are lots of reasons, most of which do enhance the bottom line, but for separate reasons also, that corporations seek power over people, particularity over the people in power, or those that might vote those into power.
The health care debate is just one example of how large corporations seek power over people, via the media, or though what are called 'astroturf' movements (things engineered to look grassroots, but are not), or through outright intimidation and lying.
I spend most of today in a union negotiation with a huge corporation. One of the biggest. God, they plead poverty so hard that I almost wrapped up the extra doughnuts for them to take home with them so their kids didn't starve. They could have loaded them into the brand new E class Benz, the brand new BMW, and the brand new SUV the three of them drove to the meeting.
Quote from: tekla on August 06, 2009, 11:36:05 PM
there's no upside for a big corporation to have power over people, but there is upside in increasing the bottom line.
or though what are called 'astroturf' movements (things engineered to look grassroots, but are not),
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Because only those who protest the war, or for abortion rights, or for gay right, or for any good and noble left wing causes (and against evil right wing republican plans) are REAL people.
god knows if anyone turns out to protest the noble acts done on our behalf by liberals, surely THAT is a manufactured protest.
I would like to find it stunning people actually believe that....but really, i don't.
I've seen non-organized, leaderless protests, we have one a month in SF called Critical Mass. The spontaneous anti-war demonstrations at the beginning of Gulf War II in SF were totally unorganized too. Others were put together by coalitions that were not so unorganized. But tell me, ain't it kind of funny that a bunch of elderly people - all of whom benefit from some form of socialized medicine - are in these town halls protesting socialized medicine? Or you, who's kids are getting it?
And, to be sure, no one is talking about socialized medicine on the English model. The proposal is NOT for single payer (though it might well go in that direction over time), but for a pool (which is all any insurance coverage is, a pool) of insurance so that people who are not covered, can be covered.
So sure, hospitals can not refuse emergency treatment on the basis of payment. Thank Nancy Pelosi's predecessor, SF Congressman Phil Burton for that one. But the problem is that emergency room care is the most expensive care there is. Treating problems before they become emergencies is a cheaper, and better alternative. The least expensive health option is preventative care, designed to stop problems before they become problems. So why should we favor something that only covers the highest priced items, when it would be far less expensive, and far less of a burden on the industry, to treat stuff at the early stages?
And the costs, as noted below, are spiraling ever higher to the point that even people who work good jobs are having trouble with the coverage premiums these days. Our union is self-insured, the number of members has remained stable (as have the number of retirees), yet the health care costs which were once around 8% a decade and a half ago (and had been very stable for a long time before that), are now approaching 14%, and that's a huge increase. During those years we have consistently chosen to lessen the coverage at that. The policy from 20 years ago would now cost us about 20%. For the same kind of care. So we tell each other, not in jest either, that if your going to have a heart attack, please have it at work so it would be a workman's comp claim, and not a policy claim. That does not seem right.
At $2,350 a family policy is almost $30K a year, outside the ability of most families to afford. Now, much like driving the new E class Benz, vs. me on my new Schwinn, rich people are always going to have options that other people don't have. It will never be a 'one size fits all' deal, because people who can afford better coverage, are going to have the option of going in that direction. I would assume that most of the union guys/girls I work with will stick with the union policy, as they are going to pay for it anyway. Private employers might well offer special policies as a way to attract and retain quality workers, a perk if you will. So private insurance is not going to go away.
There is a very interesting question regarding end of life treatment and quality of life issues and I don't know how that works out. The figures I've read put the rate at even higher than your numbers Laura. That about 80% of the total cost of your lifetime health care bill will be spend in the last year of life. Many people I know have taken positive steps in their life - called Living Wills/DNR statements - to prevent huge heroic measures from taking place in a time and space where they will do not real good. The idea that we are not going to spend money where it could do a lot of good, and spend huge amounts where its not going to matter is a huge problem to be sure.
I have no idea what to do about that, except what I can do as a person to prevent it from happening to me.
For those with Real Player you might want to watch this, a Democracy Now! interview of Wendell Potter. He's the ex-vice president in charge of public relations at CIGNA health care. Funny how this got no coverage on the mainstream press, but its Congressional testimony and you ought to listen to what he has to say.
Link to the vid and to the transcript at Democracry Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter\ (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter%5C)
EXCERPT
WENDELL POTTER: Well, the game plan is based on scare tactics. And, of course, the thing they fear most is that the country will at some point gravitate toward a single-payer plan. That's the ultimate fear that they have. But currently—and they know that right now that is not something that's on the legislative table. And they've been very successful in making sure that it isn't. They fear even the public insurance option that's being proposed, that was part of President Obama's campaign platform, his healthcare platform. And they'll pull out all the stops they can to defeat that.
And they'll be working with their ideological allies, with the business community, with conservative pundits and editorial writers, to try to scare people into thinking that embracing a public health insurance option would lead us down the slippery—excuse me, slippery slope toward socialism and that you will be, in essence, putting a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. That is—you know, they've used those talking points for years, and in years past they've always worked.
AMY GOODMAN: What turned you? Why did you change?
WENDELL POTTER: I changed because over the last two or three years I began seeing more than I'd ever seen before and became more knowledgeable of how health insurance—how health insurance companies make money, how they maximize profits.
The companies that I worked for were two of the biggest for-profit health insurance companies. And over the past fifteen years, since the last time we had this debate, the health insurance industry has consolidated to the point that now there are about seven very large for-profit health insurance companies that dominate the market.
They have begun shifting their business model away from managed care, which, frankly, I used to think was a great model, a great concept, for the delivery of healthcare. But they've moved—they're moving away from that to what they refer to as consumer-driven or consumer-directed care, and it really is just a euphemism for shifting the financial burden from insurers and employers onto the shoulders of working men and women. I saw that happening. But I also saw how—you know, the things that they do to maximize their profit, which really boils down to dumping the sick.
My parents on Medicare get better coverage than I do with my expensive plan. And I am in a coop managed by Blue Cross. There have been times when I have had to get legal counsel to get basic medical bills paid.
Right now, the excessive costs are in administration. Medicare runs with a 4% overhead. Veterans medical run at 2%. Insurance companies run anywhere from 22 to 40 percent overhead. Just last year, United Healthcare, the largest in the country routed 1 dollar of every 7 it received just to the CEO's salary. He got over one billion in salary. I've heard two figures... 1.2 and 1.7 billion. That's a lot of health care dollars going to nothing.
I really don't care who administers the plan.... just keep the costs of that administration low. A corporation simply can not do that. We have the working models right in front of our face. The government plans are working. The doctors and nurses are the same. The hospitals and clinics are the same. But the corporations charge more to cover their expensive overhead and executive salaries. To me, it is as plain as day.
What this all boils down to are a couple of points:
1) Do we consider health maintenance a personal right in this country? I believe that it does. The constitution has a phrase in their .... it says something like.... "in order to provide for the common welfare"... or something like that. I'm being lazy here to not look it up. Other countries believe that it is a right. We are the ONLY industrialized nation that does not.
2) People in our country have this unnerving idea .... "I earned my way and so should you." Well, I agree to some extent. I have a nice home because I earned it. But the state of my health is not something that I can "earn". I do the best that I can but I may have an accident. My diabetes may destroy my eyesight.... who knows what may befall me. People less fortunate, who do not have decent care, may not have the opportunities that I had because of health problems (and a host of other reasons). I do not believe that people are naturally lazy. I really believe that our society has this feeling of individualism carried too far. We seem to think that we have no need to watch out for each other where all things money are concerned.
Oh, and for the record. I do believe that a government OR corporate sponsored health care should aid us in our transitions. I think that over the past several decades that the proof is in. These fairly inexpensive surgeries solve a huge problem in our lives. Once concluded, we become productive workers without this constant and incessant crap running through our brains. It can almost instantly be resolved. That IS worth the price....so much so that even we, some of us very poor, manage to find the money to make it happen at great personal risk and loss.
Chin up!
Cindi
Quote from: tekla on August 07, 2009, 08:54:59 AM
I've seen non-organized, leaderless protests, we have one a month in SF called Critical Mass. The spontaneous anti-war demonstrations at the beginning of Gulf War II in SF were totally unorganized too. Others were put together by coalitions that were not so unorganized.
How organized is, just to pull a name out of the air, code Pink?
Quote
But tell me, ain't it kind of funny that a bunch of elderly people - all of whom benefit from some form of socialized medicine - are in these town halls protesting socialized medicine? Or you, who's kids are getting it?
Not remotely. In their case, Elderly people only have to know about the opinions of people like Ezekiel Emanuel that people like them are a bad investment of health care dollars in order to be worried.
In my case, I don't have to agree with a program to take advantage of it. It would be the ultimate self-defeating stupidity to take a stand on principle and refuse to take assistance when it's the only assistance available.
You will note if you read carefully that I am not rejecting it (single payer) on the basis that it is a government program, but on the basis that it is not financially sound.
Neither is Medicaid or Medicare which is why they are poor arguments FOR single payer. But if a ill-conceived program will help you, and the program will exist whether or not you accept, you might as well play along. You won't hurt the program or the thinkers behind it by refusing.
Quote
And, to be sure, no one is talking about socialized medicine on the English model. The proposal is NOT for single payer (though it might well go in that direction over time), but for a pool (which is all any insurance coverage is, a pool) of insurance so that people who are not covered, can be covered.
I understand it's not single payer. I also know, from Obama's own mouth, that that is his ultimate goal.
Quote
So sure, hospitals can not refuse emergency treatment on the basis of payment. Thank Nancy Pelosi's predecessor, SF Congressman Phil Burton for that one. But the problem is that emergency room care is the most expensive care there is. Treating problems before they become emergencies is a cheaper, and better alternative.
I agree.
But I wasn't arguing what was most efficient. I was correcting the persistent myth which crops up in these discussions that poor people go without care.
No one argues it's the b\est possible arrangement. the point is, there is a difference in having no coverage and having no care.
Quote
The least expensive health option is preventative care, designed to stop problems before they become problems. So why should we favor something that only covers the highest priced items, when it would be far less expensive, and far less of a burden on the industry, to treat stuff at the early stages?
didn't say you should - I was just correcting the falsehood.
It behooves all of us to not appeal to emotion if we want to make good decisions - and crying for the poor who "have no health care" is an appeal to emotion.
In point of fact, the only reason that so many are under the illusion there is a "crisis" - there's not - is directly because of appeals to emotion.
On CNN last night (hardly a right wing mouthpiece) they reported that there poll (not the phone poll, the scientific one) showed that 83% of Americans are happy with their health care and 74% are happy with their insurance coverage.
So WHY is there this big hue and cry to reform health care? Because those who WANT government CONTROL of our lives have appealed to the emotions of otherwise content people by creating the ILLUSION that millions are suffering great harm in our system and the populace takes their word for it. Just like they have believed other widely inflated lies before.
So then the public is up in arms about the supposed harm being suffered by other people, while almost all of them are perfectly happy with their current situation. Based on emotions.
Emotions are a poor basis for decision making at this level.
That's not to argue changes don't need to be made and things can't get better - its only to point out that the proposals put forth now, and those which will follow after them if they are enacted, are FAR from the only solution.
Quote
And the costs, as noted below, are spiraling ever higher to the point that even people who work good jobs are having trouble with the coverage premiums these days.
And yet, 3 of 4 are pleased with their coverage and more than 4 of 5 with their care.
How is that possible?
Quote
Our union is self-insured, the number of members has remained stable (as have the number of retirees), yet the health care costs which were once around 8% a decade and a half ago (and had been very stable for a long time before that), are now approaching 14%, and that's a huge increase.
Wait - the costs were stable for decades and then, in the last 15 years, they almost doubled?
Why?
The insurance companies didn't suddenly get greedy 15 years ago, of course. The big Pharma companies didn't have a secret meeting in the dead of the night 15 years ago and decide to collectively screw us all over ....so what's different now?
Seems to me if you want to solve a problem, it might be good to look at what changed to create the problem.
Quote
During those years we have consistently chosen to lessen the coverage at that. The policy from 20 years ago would now cost us about 20%. For the same kind of care. So we tell each other, not in jest either, that if your going to have a heart attack, please have it at work so it would be a workman's comp claim, and not a policy claim. That does not seem right.
I'm not disputing what seems right about the current system, I'm questioning the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.
Quote
At $2,350 a family policy is almost $30K a year, outside the ability of most families to afford. Now, much like driving the new E class Benz, vs. me on my new Schwinn, rich people are always going to have options that other people don't have. It will never be a 'one size fits all' deal, because people who can afford better coverage, are going to have the option of going in that direction.
That's not what Obama wants. It's what he's willing to settle for until we gullably believe that's all he wants.
You are being very naive if you think what's on the table now is as far as they want to go or will eventually go.
Quote
I would assume that most of the union guys/girls I work with will stick with the union policy, as they are going to pay for it anyway. Private employers might well offer special policies as a way to attract and retain quality workers, a perk if you will. So private insurance is not going to go away.
Would that we could revisit this exchange in 20 years...maybe less.
Quote
There is a very interesting question regarding end of life treatment and quality of life issues and I don't know how that works out. The figures I've read put the rate at even higher than your numbers Laura. That about 80% of the total cost of your lifetime health care bill will be spend in the last year of life. Many people I know have taken positive steps in their life - called Living Wills/DNR statements - to prevent huge heroic measures from taking place in a time and space where they will do not real good. The idea that we are not going to spend money where it could do a lot of good, and spend huge amounts where its not going to matter is a huge problem to be sure.
Which I agree with and is absolutely a good and wise decision -
for an individual to make for themselves.Which is entirely different than giving the government the power to makes those decisions.
Quote
I have no idea what to do about that, except what I can do as a person to prevent it from happening to me.
Which is as it should be - YOU doing it for YOURSELF.
Post Merge: August 07, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: Nichole on August 07, 2009, 09:01:21 AM
No one doubts that there are "real people" among t-baggers and the "no health reform" groups, the birthers seem to have been started all by theirselves, Laura.
The point is that the t-baggers and the "no health-care reformers" are financed by big money. In the case of baggers both financed and given free-publicity (Faux News.) Does Dick Armey have every right to lead an org that proposes that the only thing broke with health-care is that there is not enough private insurance?
But why does that matter? do not all protesters have some source of funding? Does MoveOn.org not funnel money to eft wing protest organizations? does George Soros not spend billions to influence American politics?
Did MSNBC not happily chortle over anti-Bush protests for years?
Why does any of this make the opinions expressed less genuine?
Quote
Of course he does. But at the same time it has to be recognized and reported that he is being bought and paid to do this by big pharma, hospital corp of america, and the massed private medical insurance industry to organize opposition to any changes that might tend to bring their money-flow to a stop.
That, my dear is power: power of wealth, power of communication (the media that can be bought and locked up by that wealth so that people like yourself who have this fanatic fear of any gub-mint at all can be whipped into a frenzy over govt-run health-care.)
and it's exactly the same sort of actions that got Obama elected in the first place.
do I deny that money and power make things happen in politics?
Not remotely.
Rather, I am not under the delusion that left wing politics is good and noble and pure and right wing politics is corrupt and evil.
I do not care to defend the nobility of the right winger - rather, I laugh at the mythology created when a left winger goes on TV and implies that the right wing is doing something they themselves have never down before and so many naive people believe that lie.
And, by the way, what's exactly is the difference in being afraid of big government and being afraid of big business?
either one is to be feared and the other pure....or both are ok...or both to be feared.
I would consider it VERY foolish to fear business and trust government.
In the end, government has far more power to take away your freedoms that big business does.
Quote
You say that govt-run health-care is poor. Actually, my dear, the gov't merely pays for your Medicaid procedures. They don't run the care at all.
Where did I say the care was poor? I said it wasn't financially sound.
QuoteAnd your paid-for procedures and those of your family are necessities for you, aren't they? Question is: do we spend the money for baseline healthcare for all or leave things as they are? Do uninsured people continue to go to ERs for basic treatment after their conditions have progressed to the point where they must go to the ER?
Remedying an unfortunate circumstance with a solution which is worse makes no sense. I am not arguing nothing needs changing - I am suggesting that what is at work here is a manipulation of public emotion in order to pass a far more extreme "solution" than the given problem requires.
it's like me trying to manipulate you into buying a new car because your oil needs to be changed.
Besides, I stated earlier that there is a reform system which I favor - I am not arguing for "leave well enough alone"
Quote
Is there a necessity to warehouse people in mental health facilities when with a sense that they could receive, and perhaps would, on-going wellness treatment that lowers their chances of having a huge psychotic break? Or do we prefer the "savings" brought about by treatment of preventable childhood and adult illness prior to their becoming acute at clinics and offices of medical professionals?
IF we pass government managed health care, "savings" will be the bottom line - and if it's more cost efficient to "warehouse" people or do "maintenance" care instead of mor expensive care...that's exactly what you'll get.
You would suggest I am TOO paranoid about the government - I would counter you are not paranoid enough. The government has no more motivation to spend more for better care than any HMO. And anything the HMO would do to reduce overall costs - whether that's preventative care or "warehousing" - the government will do as well. Finances demand it.
Quote
AETNA and CIGNA and BlueCross/BlueShield, Kaiser Permanente and other insurance providers are definitely going to give you an answer that disagrees with mine. They are going to say, "yep keep our money flowing and we'll handle health-care and treament based on what's best for our bottom-line, not based on what the patient needs and what the best treatment options are."
thing is though, I have no idea what those people think nor do I care. I suspect their motives every bit as much as i suspect Obama's. I'm basing my arguments on common sense observations about the way government is working and has always worked.
I DON'T argue the current system is very efficent. I believe, in fact, in free market forces and insurance coverage for routine procedures squashes market forces and is EXACTLY the reason, IMO, that we have inflated health care costs today. The more that insurance coverage was expanded to pay for routine services, the more the cost of services across the board could inflate with no market forces to check them,
I challenge you to find me a position statement from AMY big insurance provider that says anything at all about applying market forces to health care inflation.
I don't think it's out there - I sure haven't seen it.
Quote
What you continue to say, it seems to me, is that that policy works just fine and dandy.
then, with all due respect, you have no idea at all what I've been saying.
QuoteYou cannot get a particular effective treatment for your wife's ovarian cancer because it hasn't been around for 10+ years and the health-insurance companies still refer to it as experimental.
But trust me, when Dick Armey's wife gets that same ovarian cancer she will receive the best practices treatment.
When your child, heaven forfend, gets addicted to heroin or cocaine, he'll get 7 days of "de-tox" at a medical ward provided he can get in, more likely he'll get placed on a wait-list because the ward has seven beds and is full allatime.
OTH, Dick Armey's child will get at least 28 days at Caron Foundation or Betty Ford or Michael's Place in a nice comfortable surrounding in the desert, on the beach, or on a mountaintop in Pennsylvania.
and you REALLY think ObamaCare (or whatever it's officially called) WILL approve the experimental procedure or the Betty Ford?
Surely you don't.
Quote
Now, you may distrust gub-mint all you wish. But to trust in the greed and the power that pursues that greed rather than to trust any gub-mint at all defies your own interest. The interests of your children.
but, my friend, you have read your assumptions into my words if you think I trust ANYONE in this debate - I don't. As with all such things, BOTH sides have selfish agendas.
The misplaced trust here is not mine - for i trust none of them - it's yours for trusting that politicians have your best interest or mine at heart.
Quote
Government is not always the reason for "things that do not work" anyhow. Much of the reason things don't work is that the greed-heads have so finagled the final products to exploit the money-making machinery to their own well-being (how does a corporate entity have a well-being in the way you have a well-being?) that the changes are rigged from the git to screw you and screw up the system in the interest of the corporate bottom-line of Pfizer, Glaxo and Bristol-Meyers-Squibb. AETNA, CIGNA, HCA and other "players?"
That's a clause of the law of unintended consequences.
Whatever the government does, even on the occasion it is totally well meaning, is always vulnerable to manipulation.
And sometimes, the simple fact is that the nobel and laudable goal of legislation simple doesn't work in the real world.
LBJ's "War on Poverty" was certainly noble - yet it has created far more problems than it solved because the well intentioned (naive) policies didn't actually work on the ground.
so mistrusting the government is not only about mistrusting motives, it's about mistrusting the wisdom of the professed intended outcome.
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 06, 2009, 08:49:24 PM
It also implies that said death rate will be lower. in point of fact, what's more likely to happen is that you will have MORE deaths under single payer, but those deaths willbe old people that the bean counters consider a poor investment and it will be impossible to prove they wouldn't have died anyway.
How is that any different than insurance. They can easily do the same thing, and have, and not even to just elderly. The uninsured alone are not causing our high infant mortality rate to be so low.
QuoteWe do have care for everyone - what we don't have is coverage for everyone, which is a different thing.To repeat - zero coverage is NOT zero care.
Okay, this, is way wrong. Sorry, but it is.
A hospital cannot deny emergency care. That is all.
That is VERY, VERY different from medical care. You may as well hand me a bandage, whic is effectively all they are doing. My first aid training is worth as much.
If you have cancer, they are not going to treat it. If you have aids, they are not going to treat it. Flu, nope. They only have to stabilize you and send you on your way so that you aren't going to immediately die in front of them. If you are homeless and a repeat visitor, they have been known to get you stable, and then put you on a bus to another state so they don't have to deal with you anymore.
How is that care?
It's okay to die a slow agonizing death, but we will stop you from dying for as long as possible. They will treat the problems as they occur, but not treat the actual illness. High blood pressure, oh well, high cholesterol, oh well. Need a back or knee operation, Nope. None of this is immediately life threatening and therefore not going to be treated unless it is bad enough to send me to an emergency room.
Our medical system is a joke as it currently sits.
Also, who will pay for that emergency care I receive? Will they take my car? Clean out my bank account,? Ruin my credit? How does any of that help pay for it? How does any of that help me? All it does it make it harder to get back on top of things.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 07, 2009, 09:41:43 AM
My parents on Medicare get better coverage than I do with my expensive plan. And I am in a coop managed by Blue Cross. There have been times when I have had to get legal counsel to get basic medical bills paid.
Of course. Because the government has no need for a profit motive. They can always come to you and get more money when the program is about to go broke (which it's been "fixed" a couple of times already and projections have it going back into the red soon (within the next decade I think?)
The false assumption is that the government can continue to come up with even more revenue to pay for all the goodies people want. Eventually, that illusion will be shattered in a most unpleasant way.
Quote
Right now, the excessive costs are in administration. Medicare runs with a 4% overhead. Veterans medical run at 2%. Insurance companies run anywhere from 22 to 40 percent overhead. Just last year, United Healthcare, the largest in the country routed 1 dollar of every 7 it received just to the CEO's salary. He got over one billion in salary. I've heard two figures... 1.2 and 1.7 billion. That's a lot of health care dollars going to nothing.
You will not catch me defending such practices. I carry no brief in defense of those people. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that medicare, even with low overhead (taking your figures for the sake of discussion even though I suspect that they are the result of creative accounting on the part of someone) is
still going broke.The "tax the rich" mythology can't prop up these illusions forever.
Quote
I really don't care who administers the plan.... just keep the costs of that administration low. A corporation simply can not do that. We have the working models right in front of our face. The government plans are working.
No!
that's exactly my point - they DON'T work.
Just because your parents are getting good care that is being paid for by your grandkids' dollars doesn't mean that's a financially viable model. You can go to a restaurant that is loosing money and headed for bankruptcy and get a good meal....for now....and leave with the ILLUSION that the business model works because your stomach is full. But it's just that - an illusion. six months from now he'll be out of business.
Quote
The doctors and nurses are the same. The hospitals and clinics are the same. But the corporations charge more to cover their expensive overhead and executive salaries. To me, it is as plain as day.
What this all boils down to are a couple of points:
1) Do we consider health maintenance a personal right in this country? I believe that it does. The constitution has a phrase in their .... it says something like.... "in order to provide for the common welfare"... or something like that. I'm being lazy here to not look it up. Other countries believe that it is a right. We are the ONLY industrialized nation that does not.
Specifically - "to promote the general welfare" - but is the general welfare promoted if the government goes bankrupt? Or taxes all the prosperity out of the economy?
there's more to the general welfare than how healthy people are, and the general welfare was just fine for many decades before the government ever lifted a finger on health care.
YES, people had poor health and suffered for it. but, again, the "general welfare" is not just about health care, or even primarily so. It's about the balance of all considerations. for instance, a person on minimum wage would have a better general welfare if he made $30 an hour - so pass it right? no, because there are other consequences to a $30 minimum wage.
Also, I disagree with the idea that health
coverage is a basic right. TREATMENT is, arguable, but not coverage.
Quote
2) People in our country have this unnerving idea .... "I earned my way and so should you." Well, I agree to some extent. I have a nice home because I earned it. But the state of my health is not something that I can "earn". I do the best that I can but I may have an accident. My diabetes may destroy my eyesight.... who knows what may befall me. People less fortunate, who do not have decent care, may not have the opportunities that I had because of health problems (and a host of other reasons). I do not believe that people are naturally lazy. I really believe that our society has this feeling of individualism carried too far. We seem to think that we have no need to watch out for each other where all things money are concerned.
I agree. I simply would suggest that (a) it's done so in an economically sound way; and (b) that we are careful about unintended consequences
Quote
Oh, and for the record. I do believe that a government OR corporate sponsored health care should aid us in our transitions. I think that over the past several decades that the proof is in. These fairly inexpensive surgeries solve a huge problem in our lives. Once concluded, we become productive workers without this constant and incessant crap running through our brains. It can almost instantly be resolved. That IS worth the price....so much so that even we, some of us very poor, manage to find the money to make it happen at great personal risk and loss.
Chin up!
Cindi
I think I'd mostly agree with your last paragraph, within the context of the overall program being economically sound.
Post Merge: August 07, 2009, 03:55:13 PM
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 07, 2009, 03:35:17 PM
How is that any different than insurance.
It's not, that's the point. There is an illusion that the government run care will be better or more compassionate - it won't.
Money drives all, whoever is in charge.
QuoteThey can easily do the same thing, and have, and not even to just elderly. The uninsured alone are not causing our high infant mortality rate to be so low.
Again with the IMR - correlation is not causation.
Quote
Okay, this, is way wrong. Sorry, but it is.
A hospital cannot deny emergency care. That is all.
That is VERY, VERY different from medical care. You may as well hand me a bandage, which is effectively all they are doing. My first aid training is worth as much.
If you have cancer, they are not going to treat it. If you have aids, they are not going to treat it. Flu, nope. They only have to stabilize you and send you on your way so that you aren't going to immediately die in front of them. If you are homeless and a repeat visitor, they have been known to get you stable, and then put you on a bus to another state so they don't have to deal with you anymore.
If we are swapping anecdotes, I have a son who had non-emergency oral surgery that medicaid did not cover which left me with a bill of some thousands of dollars I couldn't pay (which, I shouldn't have but that's a long story) and they knew going in I couldn't pay.
Still never has been paid and they eventually quit asking.
I cannot confidently assert no one has ever been neglected, but I know of many many cases first hand where people in such a situation were not.
but, again, noting that there IS a problem -
and there is - doesn't remove the responsibility of being wise about how such a problem is addressed.
If you read back, you will find that I said I FAVORED guaranteed catastrophic care insurance, be it private or federal.
but I digress. to go back to your point - I would suggest that even if it is true that if I came up with prostate cancer on my next doctor's visit and I could not pay for treatment and thus received none...and even if I eat a bullet because I can't stand the pain at some point - as tragic as that might be...
it is not a solid argument for enacting a bad plan.Quote
How is that care?
It's okay to die a slow agonizing death, but we will stop you from dying for as long as possible. They will treat the problems as they occur, but not treat the actual illness. High blood pressure, oh well, high cholesterol, oh well. Need a back or knee operation, Nope. None of this is immediately life threatening and therefore not going to be treated unless it is bad enough to send me to an emergency room.
And you are under the impression that federal health care WILL provide the back or knee operation swiftly? What of the stories we hear from other countries of people dying while on the waiting list for months or years for such operations? What of the people who are considered a "bad investment" so they don't get the operation at all?
Seriously, I'm stunned that so many people blithly assume that the government is actually motivated by your best interest.
let me give you a kind off of topic example. I like in rent-supported housing...but I cannot live in this house is I make NOTHING. there is a minimum income to qualify. Same with Medicaid - I can't qualify if I make over about $140 a week, but on the other hand, I don't qwualify if I have no money at all.
Why? If the government REALLY has my best interest at heart, shouldn't the person with NO income be most in need of housing and health coverage?
I'll tell you why - the bottom line. They can't AFFORD to cover every person, in either case, who has no income at all - so they use that filter to thin out the demand.
So much for "taking care" of people, right? Another example: The Disability system virtually automatically rejects every claim on the first and second attempt, no matter how valid. My sister in law had a stroke and is losing the useage of the right side of her body, she can barely get up and down her doorstep or drive her car - she's been denied three times.
Why? Because the government cares?
No, because they hope she will go away and quit asking and they can save the money they would have spent on her.
THAT is the true nature of the people you guys are turning to to make sure "everyone gets care"
Quote
Our medical system is a joke as it currently sits.
Also, who will pay for that emergency care I receive? Will they take my car? Clean out my bank account,? Ruin my credit? How does any of that help pay for it? How does any of that help me? All it does it make it harder to get back on top of things.
Eventually? the taxpayer - the same people who will pay in the proposed system. Oh, they will squeeze you and screw up your credit and so forth in the meantime - which DOES suck and DOES need fixing.
Just not fixing with the currently proposed ideas.
Nevermind, I'm done.
I can quote and quote and quote instances showing how the insurance companies are taking you for a ride, you will still say they only need a slight change.
I can quote over and over again, how gov. care has worked, you will not believe it.
I can show you exact instances where hospitals literally dumped people on the street after just stopping a heart attack. You probably won't believe it.
Other countries have PROVEN single payer (and with optional coverage) works better than our own system. However some people will always argue that we don't need it, until they do.
I won't say Obamas plan is great, nothing usually is first time around, but you have to start somewhere. We have gone well over 40 years trying to "get started" and we are still at square one.
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 07, 2009, 03:55:37 PM
Nevermind, I'm done.
I can quote and quote and quote instances showing how the insurance companies are taking you for a ride, you will still say they only need a slight change.
If you would actually take the time to READ what I described above as a plan that I would favor, I don't think you could call that "slight change"
Perhaps you wouldn't be so frusterated if you would comment on what I'm actually saying instead of the cliches you are reading into my points?
Quote
I can quote over and over again, how gov. care has worked, you will not believe it.
Well, you got me there.
Quote
I can show you exact instances where hospitals literally dumped people on the street after just stopping a heart attack. You probably won't believe it.
I do believe you.
Quote
Other countries have PROVEN single payer (and with optional coverage) works better than our own system.
I suppose it's far too complex a discussion - and one in which we both know no minds will be changed - for me to challenge that claim, I will only note for the record that I am not convinced by it.
Quote
However some people will always argue that we don't need it, until they do.
I know perfectly well that I will need it. it doesn't persuade me that the kind and noble government is going to take good care of me. I know from personal experience that they are not.
My own personal need is not presuasive. For example, if i walk out in the morning and start my car and it throws a rod - I'm screwed. i cannot remotely buy another, nor can I earn an income without it.
does this mean I should favor a program in which the government provides me a car?
Quote
I won't say Obamas plan is great, nothing usually is first time around, but you have to start somewhere. We have gone well over 40 years trying to "get started" and we are still at square one.
"Starting somewhere" is great - force feeding a MASSIVE plan, which is not only untested BUT not even well considered and examined is very very bad.
IF in face we REALLY want to do the best thing we possibly can to fix the system, then WHY is it necessary to demand that it get passed before the recess when every member of Congress freely confesses - and the president should - that they don't even know what all is in the bill, let alone have thoughtfully considered all the possible unintended consequences?
If it must be done, should we not carefully consider every facet, rather than just shovel a bunch of s--- and hope it somehow works out better than the s--- we have now?
What's the rush?
Let me suggest that IF your REAL concern is making things right, you will act slowly and carefully...but IF your REAL concern is expanding government control over people's lives, then you want to act very quickly before the people catch on to what you have in mind.
What's the greater risk - that people will continue to suffer negative outcomes from the current system for another year or so but in the long run you have a much more efficient and sustainable model? or that you cobble together something as quickly as possible and a decade from now have to figure out how to "rescue" it the way we have to rescue medicare every decade or so?
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 07, 2009, 04:20:58 PM
If you would actually take the time to READ what I described above as a plan that I would favor, I don't think you could call that "slight change"
I did.
Your plan isn't on the table, and never will be.
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 07, 2009, 04:51:42 PM
I did.
Your plan isn't on the table, and never will be.
Which is why I voice my respectful dissent to what IS on the table.
Nevertheless, the point remains - those who are preaching at me do so from the implication that I am defending the status quo and do not care about the "victims" of the current system.
This happens not to be the case.
Even if what I described is not on the table, that reality does nothing to change th fact that my position is not "leave well enough alone"
which was my point when I referred you to it.
Post Merge: August 07, 2009, 05:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nichole on August 07, 2009, 05:01:23 PM
One thing sure, Laura. I find your "logic" less than impelling, but I've been doing that for some time. Your over-long sentence-by-sentence quotes coupled with the screeds you place behind them are just impossible for me to read after a bit.
The alternative then, is that I simply concede the discussion to those I disagree with.
Neither side conceding without a thoughtful exchange of ideas helps anything.
In fact, such stonewalling is pretty much a good description of how politics works and why it serves us so poorly.
Quote
OK, you've learned the staid ole internetz argument style. Congratulations.
Oh please, if we were discussing this over coffee would you accuse me of trying to "baffle with bull->-bleeped-<-" just to get you to back down?
Why is it so difficult for people to just discuss things? Clearly we all disagree. clearly I could have just kept my head down and said nothing on this or any other controversial subject - is that what you want? Is that what any of us want from folks they disagree with? to just shut up and go away?
Maybe I'm alone when I say this, but i feel like my thinking is strengthened and my reasoning sharpened when my positions are challenged and my conclusions questioned - I have NO desire to have e people "give up" in the face of my case.
Maybe I haven't learned internet debating in the way you think I have. It seems to me that another facet of internet debates are the folks who just walk away saying "I think what i think and I have no interest in having it questioned"
Quote
But, my friend, my eyes are well glazed long before you run out of bandwidth and finger-strength.
I'm sorry, but I just didn't even read all of your reply to tekla. Let alone any of what you wrote to me, Cindi or Leslie Ann.
So, you win as far as I am concerned.
that's kinda sad. But you're entitled I guess. i don't see what's served by dismissing a person who's thoughts you are unwilling to hear.
not to mention it is (unintentionally I'm sure) kind of objectifying to be told "You talk too much so I decline to listen to you"
right or wrong, I'm unworthy of being heard because you have no real interest in having your opinion altered.
Quote
But forgive me: I'll still be supporting a health-care re-form.
Just as you will be praising the unregulated "free-enterprise system" as they take the last dollar you have and offer your children's lives to make a profit for themselves somewhere in a desert, jungle or steppe far away. So it goes.
And see, this is the one part of it that gets me - dismiss me as unworthy of being heard?
Your privilege.
But dismiss me WHILE describing my position in terms of your pre-assumed cliches and assumptions instead of what I actually think is a discredit to both of us.
It's a perfect example of why we are becoming a nation of people who talk past each other instead of coming to solutions.
As an aside, check out this video from Kathy Castor's "Town Hall" and note well WHICH side is represented by organizers wearing t-shirts, and tags, and passing out signs and propaganda.
The irony of people complaining the opposition is "astroturf" and artificially organized while at the same time stacking the crowd in their favor AND passing out signs and propaganda is beyond words....
Castor Oil Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvD76-1Y2CQ#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
I think "beyond words" is what I would call it as well...
I have stayed out of this debate because I have quite mixed feelings. I personally do not like going into the hospital and paying for several other people to be there at the same time. I would like it even less if someone had to pay for me to be there. Now I hear it said that many of us just want to work, pay our insurance, and get on with our lives. Maybe I am the "syringe half empty" kind of girl, but the notion that anyone in America "just pays their bill" is a myth. The cost of their care gets picked up somewhere. And that is why your itemized hospital bill will totally shock you. You will see those $5 aspirins and all of that. How is this possibly fair to anyone?
Having just participated in another country's medical system, I asked the doctor how he could possibly offer services for so much less than a comparable procedure in the US. I supposed it was because his cost of living was less. But no. He answered that he did not have to have malpractice insurance like his American counterparts. So this has gotten me wondering. I have heard nothing about how the new plan would handle the malpractice issue. Maybe someone has heard. Would it eventually be impossible to sue for malpractice because basically the doctors would be controlled by the government? Or has this even been addressed. And, if GRS is included (which I think would be just awesome) would it be possible to sue the doctor if you change your mind, as we are seeing now?
Just some questions.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
malpractice insurance accounts from the low range of $80 billion a year and high range of up to $250 billion a year in an industry that costs 2+ trillion dollars a year to operate. it's is definately a place that there can be some savings, but not nearly enough to reform the system in any meaningful way.
a big reason (almost the only reason) that people will go after large amounts of money in a malpractice suit is for future medical costs. a single payer system would do more to help doctors with the high cost of malpractice insurance than any proposed tort reforms even with the best of estimates since there would never be a reason to go after future medical costs.
*edit* a peer review board should be able to put a stop to most of the other frivolous lawsuits as well, if a majority admits to a potential negligence, then the board would move ahead with charges. they have a similar system in australia IIRC. In the specific case of GRS and other cosmetic surgeries (oh no, i went there again!) I just assume that there could just be a simple waiver. :)
That's assuming you would be allowed to seek legal recourse at all.
but I'll grant that particular point (your last sentence)
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 07, 2009, 10:32:42 PM
That's assuming you would be allowed to seek legal recourse at all.
come on Laura, if there is anything us socialist libs never get in the way of, it's trial lawyers, right??
/me places tounge firmly in cheek
:)
Most of the provisions in this bill don't even take effect for 4 years. I firmly believe that cost saving provisions will be routinely addressed and enacted. They have set up a medical utilization board that will look at and address this very issue. The conservative have, in my opinion, been playing on the fears and ignorance of the general population by presenting the bug-a-boo of an impersonal, bureaucratic board that will make decisions.
Read todays chapter of the Palin Saga which concerns utilization. Gee-EVERY medical insurance policy ALREADY has one! 97 year old people with virtually no chance of surviving the operation and, besides, they have lung cancer, don't get $500,000 heart transplants. You just don't see the decision being made. Actually read your policy. I have to, I know a bit of what I am doing, and yet, I have to read it 3 or 4 times before I really feel comfortable with it. Our corporate, standard Cigna policy has a clause describing who, what, and when they will make a decision on appropriate, necessary, accepted, and approved health care. And their ruling is-FINAL-except to the extent overruled by state law.
My own personal observation is that 90% of health care in US could be given by nurse practioners trained in two things-1. recognizing what has to be seen by a doctor, and 2. reciting the phrase "Go home, you have a cold, drink water, take an aspirin-no, you don't need a prescription, just a little rest". There, I bet I could drop health care expenditures 40% just with that.
Quote from: Nichole on August 07, 2009, 08:49:40 PM
But every breath I take, or Cindi, Leslie Ann or tekla takes seems to present a problem for you. At some point doncha think it's simply pointless to argue it?
This is exactly why I stopped.
I did not mean that I'm taking my ball and going home. I'm sorry if I came off in such a manner, that was not my intention, I just simply wished to bow out of the debate. Nothing will be solved by it and it will eat up a lot of time and energy. Hugs to everyone.
Astro-turf is a term for things parading around as grass-roots when they are, in fact PAC/corporate sponsored. And, anyone who has ever been near a group like Code Pink (which only organized after the war had started) never refers to it as an organized group. They kinda like being disorganized. They are not some shrewd bunch of politicos using secret funding, they are, as they seem to be, a bunch of mostly older women (hippie types) who opposed this war, like they've opposed all prior wars.
And on those things where my union, or other unions participate, we don't cover that up, we show up in our union colors, representing exactly who we are, and who we are there for. There is no attempt at diversion or distraction, or hiding things - we are very proud of who we are, when the men and women of the Longshoreman's Union march, they march - rank and file - as Longshoremen, with Longshoreman Union coats, shirts and banners as well as Longshorman's songs and chants. Its all but impossible to miss them.
And what is going on here is precisely what Nichole is point to in another post. The people on the losing end raising such a fuss that the real points can't even be debated. The decision has been made, not to participate, but to obfuscate. This bill, in the end does nothing really, its just a start on something that should have been done long ago, and is meant to get the ball rolling. I'm sure they will be back next year, with even more, and at that point I don't think they are even going to try to get a consensus opinion, they are going to vote on numbers, and they have numbers.
All this does is cast the right further out in the political wilderness, and as the left will tell you, its a long, long way to get back home again.
Quote from: Cindy Stephens on August 08, 2009, 10:42:24 AM
My own personal observation is that 90% of health care in US could be given by nurse practioners trained in two things-1. recognizing what has to be seen by a doctor, and 2. reciting the phrase "Go home, you have a cold, drink water, take an aspirin-no, you don't need a prescription, just a little rest". There, I bet I could drop health care expenditures 40% just with that.
Now HERE is true wisdom we cal all agree on.
I wish to physically hurt that Matt Barber idiot... >:(
Quote from: Kristi on August 07, 2009, 10:13:38 PM
I have heard nothing about how the new plan would handle the malpractice issue. Maybe someone has heard. Would it eventually be impossible to sue for malpractice because basically the doctors would be controlled by the government? Or has this even been addressed.
I think that we must address this issue. Because it always comes up. Actual payouts for malpractice suits is .01 percent of actual health care costs. Yet, this is the first counter argument presented (or presented by THE insurance companies) to some sort of socialized program of any type. Yes I agree we should look at it. But something that has NEVER been addressed to my satisfaction is the ratio of what providers pay for insurance VS what the actual payouts are under these plans. We need to follow the money. We can not trust the rubbish we here from insurance company shills. We need to investigate the problem and understand it rather than to just listen to someone propose a solution without understanding the underlying cause. I suspect that if we limited legal suits to low cost arbitration and small malpractice awards, doctors would still be paying far too much for malpractice insurance. And who'd be the real recipient of the short end of the stick...... again?
QuoteAnd, if GRS is included (which I think would be just awesome) would it be possible to sue the doctor if you change your mind, as we are seeing now?
I would say yes. And I honestly, I believe that these cases would be summarily dismissed.
I also believe that we should be looking at countries who have better health care than we do to see what they do. There are 30 or so that do a better job than we do. Why don't we ever hear anything of them or what they do? France is rated number one. They have a combination plan with private and public options. How does theirs work, how much does it cost? How might we apply what they do to our system? You will hear nothing about smart analysis tactics. BTW, this is the first thing that any business would do. I know. I used to do this sort of work. You look at your competition and beat them by providing better service and lower cost. We are looking at this issue from a completely different standpoint. Why?
Cindi
Quote from: Heartwood on August 05, 2009, 05:06:39 PM
*sigh*
Oh please you guys. We all know that some people would rather commit suicide then stay as thier birth gender. That is what HRT is for, going around as the gender you say you are, But WE are talking about SRS, which IMO is a tolerateable as a tumor in your groin. Except an acual tumor has the chance of killing you... Nobody here goes around naked all the time, so it has no effect on people taking you seriously as a man/woman.
And I know you guys are going to say something about others killing transsexuals because of thier genitalia or something. If that is the case, the problem lies not in the genitals but in the person doing the killing. Having genitals opposite of your gender does may cause a bit of discomfert but is NOT life threatening.
There is a number of people who mutilate themselves from desperation and some who would kill themselves because they have the wrong genitals.
there are some who can blow it off or tolerate their wrong genitals not being corrected, however, we should always consider the people who
cannot go on with the wrong genitals.
Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 05, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
They will even put in a fake testicle if you lose one, or a fake breast implant.
I'm just goofing on you, but isn't that redundant? Would a
fake breast implant be if the surgeon
pretended to use an implant, or if they told you it was an implant, but it turned out to be a real breast?
I think largely because of money. There is a huge profit motive in both the health care industry, as well as in its paid spokespeople, some of which are our elected officials. Check out the money that the people who oppose this are collecting in contributions, and it pretty much tells the story.
No one is proposing doing anything to change the entire system. The only thing, and I'm not sure its even going to get through, is a public pool for people who are not otherwise covered, and attempting to do something about the insanity of pre-existing conditions clause.
At the bottom line level, this problem is one that affects the competitiveness of American Industry (aside from the insurance industry) in the world market, adding unnecessary costs to the end tag of manufactured items. And that is one reason that a lot of people do support it.
And yes, France and Germany have very good health care systems, and BTW, so does Canada for the most part. But every time it's brought up its the NIH in Brittan, a model that no other country really follows. And the arguments are getting a little shop worn at this point. The entire deal about having a gub'mt bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Well, you have a bureaucrat between you and your doctor now, that and an executive who gets paid more if they pay out to you less. Is that really a better option?
Since, no one is talking at this point about changing anything that people like so much, I would think the reasonable and rational choice is for those people to bow out of the debate, as it doesn't really reach them.
This is a key area where elections have consequences, and like they all said after the 2000/2004 election, the losers ought to keep quite and admit defeat. (Which I'm sure they now regret, as some of the losers did get busy and ended up winning). Health care reform was a key issue for people voting the eventual winners into power, and - oddly enough in a democracy - the people are getting some measure, though in no means what they really wanted, which I think is Single Payer, or something on that model, of what they voted these people into office to do.
I think it's going to happen, and the passage of this bill is just a field test for what's going to come next year.
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 06, 2009, 08:49:24 PM
so, of course, MSA's are anethema to left wing politicians - why? Because if YOU are making the decisions, government has less CONTROL over you and THAT my friends is what they WANT, not to "take care of you"
I think it is the people who want to legislate morality that want to control me. People who spent all our money on oil wars and such. They are the people to watch out for.
I wouldn't fear someone who wants to
help me if I'm having a hard time. No one controls me anyway. You could have a zillion government programs. IF I had enough money to do it, I'd get private insurance or cover my bills myself. That's me making a decision.
If taxes go too high, somebody will be voted in to cut them along with the programs that are causing it. If the votes aren't there, some corporations will pay to have the right tax cutter put in office.
Today's solutions the problems of tomorrow.
As long as I make like $30,000 a year, I doubt I'm going to be overtaxed anyway.
I agree with Tekla. It won't be earth shattering change.
I think that it is illustrative to look at the argument that seems to be making the rounds. Obamacare is evil because you would be forced to stand in front of a death board who would decide how to end your life. Palin has said something to this effect. Also Pat Buchanan on today's McLaughlin report.
What they are refereeing to is a provision ALLOWING you to see a specialist, social worker, therapist, etc. who could help you decide on a course of action upon being given a really bad diagnoses. Very stressful time of life. Maybe your spouse, or your priest is the best person to ask. Maybe a professional. Wouldn't you like someone, IF YOU WANT, with professional creds to give you insight on hospice care, continuing treatment, no treatment at all? Maybe even at hospice at home until it is time to go to a facility. Doctors don't like this option because they lose a customer. My father had it, and he had a very peaceful end.
Unfortunately, the same players against Terry Shiavo are coming out against this provision. They want to force their religious practices down your throat, without so much as the information of alternatives. Didn't they do the same thing with birth control and turn it into an abstinence only program which when measured had the same success rate as no program. Resulting in Palins daughter... well, I'm not going to go the Letterman route.
Choice is having more, not less information and choices. I deal with the bureaucracy all the time and have rarely had trouble. Of course I assume that they are there to do their jobs. Usually they are quite helpful. Of course I have seen people get pushy, mouthy, and arrogant (I am your boss etc.) and bureaucrats, who know how the system works, can send you to Siberia. I guess you just get the Government you deserve.
Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 12:59:05 PM
Post Merge: August 09, 2009, 03:00:26 PM
Now that we have solved the health care question, I notice the thread is "Free Sex-change Surgeries." I think that because of limited surgeons, and varied methods, perhaps a maximum payment for the surgery could be set up. Like this. The policy pays max of 17,500 for whole procedure. If yours costs more, then you pay difference. Hormones should be covered whether or not you have surgery, hair removal, breast augmentation, ffs, etc. not. Agree:disagree?
Quote from: Rebis on August 09, 2009, 01:51:10 PM
I think it is the people who want to legislate morality that want to control me.
They do to.
QuotePeople who spent all our money on oil wars and such. They are the people to watch out for.
what does legislating morality have to do with "oil wars"?
Even if the same person happens to do both, it's a non-sequiter in this conversation.
Quote
I wouldn't fear someone who wants to help me if I'm having a hard time. No one controls me anyway.
Meh. Religious people do a LOT to help people in need and a LOT of people fear religious people greatly.
Often for good reason.
Quote
You could have a zillion government programs. IF I had enough money to do it, I'd get private insurance or cover my bills myself. That's me making a decision.
If taxes go too high, somebody will be voted in to cut them along with the programs that are causing it. If the votes aren't there, some corporations will pay to have the right tax cutter put in office.
Today's solutions the problems of tomorrow.
True that.
Quote
As long as I make like $30,000 a year, I doubt I'm going to be overtaxed anyway.
Not directly, no. But a lot of the negative impact on anyone's economic situation is indirect.
for instance - if you tax a corporation does the corporation make less money?
nope. they raise their prices. So the ultimate taxpayer of cooperate taxes is the customer - i.e. the average citizen, you and me.
Quote
I agree with Tekla. It won't be earth shattering change.
One things for sure, whether or not GID is covered would be a drop in the bucket of the overall cost of the thing. It's sure a red herring in the debate.
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 09, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
One things for sure, whether or not GID is covered would be a drop in the bucket of the overall cost of the thing. It's sure a red herring in the debate.
so true.
QuoteNow that we have solved the health care question, I notice the thread is "Free Sex-change Surgeries." I think that because of limited surgeons, and varied methods, perhaps a maximum payment for the surgery could be set up. Like this. The policy pays max of 17,500 for whole procedure. If yours costs more, then you pay difference. Hormones should be covered whether or not you have surgery, hair removal, breast augmentation, ffs, etc. not. Agree:disagree?
The PHB column that was linked above referred to a study that said the average cost in 2001 was $11,400 and the inflation calculator implies that's around $13,000 today. So $17,5 seems generous. probably have to index it a bit for inflation.
I agree that hormones should be covered and so should therapy. I agree that BA shouldn't (unless it's covered for the flat chested GG) nor should FFS.
But I disagree about hair removal. If a GG is "hirsute" (ever how you spell it) it's considered a treatable medical condition. I would think that if that's true then SOME not all!) hair removal would be covered for the trans patient as well - but only in the places where hair is unnatural for a female. Not arms, legs, genitals (except as necessary for surgery) or underarms.
Quote from: Cindy Stephens on August 09, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
I think that it is illustrative to look at the argument that seems to be making the rounds. Obamacare is evil because you would be forced to stand in front of a death board who would decide how to end your life. Palin has said something to this effect. Also Pat Buchanan on today's McLaughlin report.
I think it is almost funny to point out is that the "end of life counseling" that is in the bill was put there by two Republican members of Congress. I wonder how they can get away with this stuff? I actually agree that putting together a living will is a good idea. They offer free counseling at the clinic where I go for this.... and it is not a public financed clinic. I agree with you Cindy, I think that it is an excellent thing to offer.
Cindi
Palin has said something to this effect. Also Pat Buchanan
Are those their sources? Their spokespersons? One who declared a culture war after being a speechwriter for the only President to ever have had to resign in disgrace, and the other who couldn't even finish a term as governor of a low population state? One is a tool and the other is a fool. If this is the best they got anyone to quote from how can the other side possibly lose?
Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2009, 10:08:08 PM
If this is the best they got anyone to quote from how can the other side possibly lose?
Does make you wonder.
But the truth is, health care reform is not exactly taking the country by storm, at least not as a whole.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform)
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51810 (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51810)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121916/Two-Three-Doubt-Congress-Grasp-Healthcare-Issues.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121916/Two-Three-Doubt-Congress-Grasp-Healthcare-Issues.aspx)
Does anyone have any more recent polling data?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Social Security and Medicare were equally difficult to implement politically. They do seem fairly popular these days.
I'm still very hopeful that we will accomplish something significant. But if we let the insurance companies continue to gouge us, the next go around won't be a public and private option, it will be nationalized. All we have to do is tip the balance... you know.... where more people do not have insurance than do. Then we'll get nationalized health care.
You know, some people just do not know when and where to pick their battles.
So, I suppose that it doesn't really matter. Insurance companies can lose out a little right now or they can lose everything a few years down the road.
Cindi
I don't think they use polling numbers except on the opposition. If they did, we would have never gone to war in Iraq, and even if then we would have been out every year since then. So I don't think they care about the numbers.
The polls are skewed. You can ask the same person the same question phrased two different ways and get two different answers.
The "leaders" opposed to it are spreading fear and lies to get people riled up and turn against it. Almost every high level person against it has their hand in the cookie jar and has some of the best medical coverage money can buy.
Yellow daisy,
I understand. However, if you have hair removal covered then a large number of regular men will want hair removed even if they are only looking to improve their appearance. They will turn it into a joke. If we got facial surgery, then huge numbers of women will want their fair share also. Then we become a bigger scapegoat then we are now. I think we have to be a bit thankful for any change that comes and avoid trying to go a bit too far. At least at the beginning.
Quote from: Leslie Ann on August 10, 2009, 01:25:58 AM
The polls are skewed. You can ask the same person the same question phrased two different ways and get two different answers.
I realize you can massage data and get lots of different slants to it as well. Rasmussen and Gallup seem to be some of the more reliable ones out there though. I didn't list the CNN or right wing polls. They seem to be showing similar trends. I just don't think in this case all of the polls are totally off base. We do need some kind of reform. No, there will never be complete consensus. I saw an interview with Obama where he said he does not govern according to polls. But to me it looks like this plan is in danger. I don't believe it is too late, but there are obviously some real issues that need to be addressed. And, if anyone has access to more current data, I would still like to see it. I just wonder if things have changed since these were done.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Laura Hope on August 09, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
They do to.what does legislating morality have to do with "oil wars"?
nothing. My point is that the last administration burned through money for no good reason. At least this administration is making an effort to burn through money for people who pay the taxes and who live in THIS country and not some other one.
I'm coming in late on this thread but here is my two cents: I am fully supportive of a single payer system like Canada's or France or even the UK. However, I think what we will get in the end is something that benefits the health care industry and radically increases costs and reduces coverage to the average citizen. It is like the no fault auto insurance deals passed in some states that were supposed to lower rates but instead they went up. The Medicare Part D program that was supposed to give seniors access to prescription drugs was supposed to lower the cost of drugs but instead they went up. That program is LARGER than Social Security and it benefits the drug companies big time. I suspect that will happen with this too. The corporations are just too powerful.
So if we get coverage for SRS or HRT it will probably be dependent on the same people who deny it or restrict it now under a different organization.
That's a different point.
I was only disagreeing with the implication that being organized was bad.
something that apparently Nancy Pelosi agrees with me on given her memo listing the groups the Democrats were coordinating with in order to control the message (or try to)
As for the anger and the shouting - if you can find me something from any left wing source decrying the shouting and disruption that went on in anti-war protests....to name just one cause celeb...I'll be more inclined to listen to their outrage now.
It has been SOP for some time now that when a right-of-center speaker appears on a university campus to speak that there's a vocal protest to try to shout the person down and be sure they are not heard.
I find it fascinating how many on the left are so VERY troubled that people on the right are taking plays directly out of the left wing playbook that's been in use for decades.
And protest in great innocence that no such thing ever happened.
Ha.
doesn't really matter anyway. The government will be bankrupt soon enough and this debate will have been pointless.
Having worked for the government, beware that government contracts are usually awarded to the lowest bidder.
"Let the buyer beware" takes on a whole new phrase.
The government could just do like "Cash-for-Clunkers".
I go and get new genitalia with money towards the surgery by trading in the old. They can take the "twig and berries" and render them unsalvagable.
(I don't think my genitalia ever got more than 1 mile to the gallon)
Make it about a $100 dollar-a-month payment for a 5-year note.
Reposessions will not be allowed.
Hugs~
Here's an example of what critics fear when it comes to government health care:
http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html (http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html)
Oh I certainly AM aware of it.
Indeed, it's part of the problem - that sort of thing is the sort of thing that nationalizing the system is supposed to fix - but won't.
same can be said for a lot of the other unfounded hopes and promises being bandied about right now. the Democrats have a strategy, publicly disclosed, of demonizing private insurance companies - with the unstated implication that if you let them have their plan all those evils they speak of will be fixed.
The thing is, many of the things they call evils of the current system aren't addressed at all in the bills being talked about - it's scare tactics every bit as much as the worst stuff coming out of their opposition.
I'm not ABOUT to say this lady would have gotten better treatment from a private insurer...but it wouldn't have been WORSE so why should we nationalize the system and take on more massive debt to change the identity of the decision maker who's getting it wrong.
Hey the insurance companies didn't need any democratic help getting their demon rating. As bad as "Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" sounds - and often it does, "Hi, I'm from Wellpoint Inc. and I'm here to help" does not exactly give off an air of confidence either.
shouting and disruption - I think the left tends to take to the streets (and I don't understand why either) and not meetings, and for the record, they tend not to shout, they chant dumb slogans and sing even worse songs.
But this is not a right/left deal, lots of big corporate executives (not in health care) want to see something down about trying to control the costs.
doesn't really matter anyway. The government will be bankrupt soon enough and this debate will have been pointless.
So, why does the right hate America so much? Have so little faith in it? Always running the country into the ground (by government when you have it, by negative thinking when you don't), not having any faith in the goodness of the people, the genius of the system, the abilities and resources we have (and hey, with our military, we can take the stuff we don't have) and our ability to out think problems. I mean yeesh, OK, so your life sucks. Lots of people are out of work, but its not as bad as the Great Depression, and we made it out of that. It's not like WWII with huge empires based on hate and military power bearing down on us - and we won that. It's not like the Civil War, and that eventually came to an end. All in all, its not that bad, its only money, we print more - its not like money is real or anything.
The nice thing about studying a lot of history is that every time you start to think "Oh my god, the sky is falling, this is the worst bad time in the entire cycle of worse bad times." You take a second and think, oh wait, I guess its not.
QuoteHowever, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. But doctors told us, that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.
Of course they did. It is a bit of PR spin. They get to say "see we do care about people," But they did not come forward voluntarily, it took her doctor to call them.
And it does make sense that the state will cover her death, not her staying alive. Medicare will do the same thing, when and if assisted suicide becomes federal law. And that is why I don't think we will have SRS covered by a federal program. It is all about the money. Always has been, always will be.
Janet
QuoteSo, why does the right hate America so much? Have so little faith in it?
How wonderfully snarky and how utterly pointless.
The left says we have a problem (in fact, not so long ago, the deficit was their biggest concern) and they simply "care about our future" - the right says we have a problem and they "hate America and have no faith in it"
Frankly my dear, such childishness doesn't deserve a serious reply.
I think we can stipulate as a given that no side in the debate - on this or any other topic - "hates America"
Health care and drug companies are necessary 'evils'. People whine and cry about the cost of health care and drugs, but someone has to pay for the advances in both areas, and that is the beneificeries of those procedures and drugs. The general public. And they would not be in business if they didn't make a profit for the investors and themselves.
And it is a good bit of PR for them. Many drug companies have free drug programs for the un/under employed. Again good PR.
The ones that run these companies may really care about the patients, but they have to answer to the investors and the board of directors. and they are in it for the money. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti profit. I would not have a job if it wasn't for profits. But will we really ever get the kind of health care and medications that we require? No because it isn't profitable enough for the companies to provide it.
And I really don't think we will have the kind of health care we see in other countries because the general public does not wish to pay for it. Many may not know it but Medicare isn't free. Most pay for it at a $100 per month. Ask any senior. If I could get the health care I need as a transwoman, for what I pay now for my coverage or at $100 per month I would gladly pay it. But SRS isn't profitable enough. HRT is a part of preventive medicine and usually gets covered.
As I said it is all about the money. Would any of you do wourr job/prrofession for free? Hack No. I am in it for the money.
Janet
Then tell me, Janet, why drug companies spend as much,or more, on promoting their drugs? Because most new drugs are only marginally better then the current ones! Your taxes have frequently been used to do the original research that underlies new drugs. The expense is public. Then, when it is finally turned into something useful, the profits are privatized. Sweet. Worse, Americans are forced to pay full price because you can just jack up the cost of insurance. People in Europe pay maybe 1/3 to 1/2 the cost because their SINGLE payer system negotiates the best, most cost effective drug prices. Often that isn't the newest drug until it has been proven. I have an excellent policy and it specifically states that any drug must be FDA approved and not experimental. So it wouldn't pay for that Oregon womans drug either.
Guess what, our ability to keep tissue alive is beginning to exceed our ability to pay for it. What if a drug could keep your body alive-but brain dead- and this drug cost $1,000,000 a month. Some drugs now cost close to 100k a month. Should we? Could we? Where do we stop?
Again it is about the money. Just as an example, which would you rather sell one item at 1 million dollars, or a million items at a $1. Your profit is the same at 10%. But at the end of 10 years your profit is $100,000,000.00 for the $1 item, and only $1,000,000.00 for the Million dollar item. That is 10000% increase in profit.
And who will pay a million dollar item every year for the next ten years. It makes sense to sell the lower price item and make higher profits over the long haul. Therefore it makes sense to advertise the lower price item. And the advertising costs can be deferred and even taken off the taxes as the cost of doing business.
I also have a good policy. Kaiser Permenete of Oregon. And they also will not pay for experimental drugs. Most will not. And if we can keep the body alive with the brain dead, why would we. But if the brain is still alive and functioning, don't we have a obligation to at least try? And why do you think that more and more Americans go to Europe and Canada for the medications? Because a) experimental drugs are available, and b) drugs are cheaper.
And what about "First do no harm?" I am just saying that while it would be great to have SRS and related health issues covered, I just can't see it happening. It isn't profitable.
Janet
Hell I've been waiting since Reagan took office to get to use that line.
And Democrats have been working on health care since the late 1940s when Harry Truman tried to do something, then again in the sixties when Lyndon actually did something, then we had two Southern Democrats as a democratic President and the agenda just isn't the same, and Clinton tried, but he made such a hash of it - like so many other things - so we're back, and so is health care. Other than the gun trade, no other industry has the lack of oversight the health industry does.
People whine and cry about the cost of health care and drugs, but someone has to pay for the advances in both areas, and that is the beneificeries of those procedures and drugs. The general public. And they would not be in business if they didn't make a profit for the investors and themselves.
In fact, if you'd check it out, that at least 1/2 the cost for most drugs is put up by the NIH, the trials are publicly financed, often in public universities and public hospitals - and only after they suck it down at the trough for a huge part of the development to they start to claim private enterprise.
Ask a studio CFO how much his studio's last film, ummm, say, Titanic, netted. My guess would be you'd discover that Titanic on the studio books netted negative money. Even though it's the largest grossing film ever made to-date. So it grossed $600,788,000 and every last bit of that a
There is no greater fiction in Hollywood then the bookkeeping and accounting. Only the record industry was as bad, until MP3s left them with not much to count anymore. That's why outsiders, Gulf+Western, Coca Cola, and Transamerica have gone in, bought studios thinking "Hey, we're going to cash in" and find out they might lose their entire multinational corporation over one movie. Transamerica almost went belly up from Heaven's Gate alone.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJmsMurGONui7KL3DlV8sfjG7sQQD9A0PBCG0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJmsMurGONui7KL3DlV8sfjG7sQQD9A0PBCG0)
A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday denied additional hair-removal treatments for a murderer who is seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation, saying the inmate has failed to prove she will suffer "serious harm" without further electrolysis.