Yesterday, my dad had a heart attack. He is 'okay', thanks to the swift provision of an Angioplasty at basildon hospital. He gets his echo today, and we find out how bad the damage is. He'll then recieve on going treatment, for as long as he needs it.
My dad is not a very happy or well man. His mother was an alcholic as is he. While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.
Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.
Yet, here he is, receiving care at a specialist cardiovascular unit, and on going care, free at point of use. His care is the priority, not profit an insurance company.
He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.
All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.
So i guess i would like to understand more.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
My dad is...an alcoholic...While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.
Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.
...I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
- Ignorance/indoctrination (watching Fox News)
- Lack of empathy (don't care about what happens to other people)
- Short-sightedness (can't see themselves in other people's shoes)
- Last, some people are legitimately intellectually persuaded by the right-wing argument (yeah, I don't get it either)
Now I'm obviously taking the piss out of conservatives. But some would say that by being an alcoholic your father has made his choice and "why do I gotta pay taxes? It's not MY dad."
Not me, though. My heart goes out to you and your family, and I hope your dad recovers quickly. My own had a scary bout with colon cancer a couple years back, and he's alive and cancer-free now due to the sole fact that his health insurance (he's a contractor, self-employed) INEXPLICABLY didn't cancel his policy. It's a baffling mind-f*&%, but my family is counting our blessings.
Zo
He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.
So i guess i would like to understand more.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
I hope your dad gets better. I am lucky I live in Australia we have public health care.
I am with you Zomb I don't understand why the US is so opposed to public health care.
I will give you a personal example
I developed an ulcer on the cornea - essentially triggering all the pain receptors in my eyeball and making me photosensitive. I went to emergency, the ophthalmic surgeon tried out some antibiotics and creams to get the ulcer to heal over but it did not work, they then laser resurfaced my eye and bam better then new. Total out of pocket was around $80 for the antibiotics and creams.
I work and pay taxes, I get adequate health care, I have also not worked and been on social security, and have been a student and during those times I have needed health care - I don't begrudge the unemployed and students having free health care at my expense because I know that the majority will contribute to the greater good in the future.
The people I hate, the biggest traitors, are those that avoid taxes. They are worse then minority of those who graft off the system. These people (the majority of whom are the wealthy) use our roads, health care, education system, police, fire-fighters, military and think it is a bragworthy thing that they don't contribute good of everybody else. When a soldier dies on the front line because their equipment was substandard, because we cant afford the best for our troops or a baby dies in a remote hospital because the hospital cant afford an incubator, those that avoid tax are in part responsible.
I expect my taxes to go to Health, Education, Transportation, Defence, and public services/protection.
If you can pay your fair share of taxes but you have weaselled your way out then you are a traitor and can bugger off to Dubai, or Switzerland or the some other tax shelter and forfeit your citizenship.
OK first let me say I am glad that your father is getting better.
I don't speak for ALL conservatives anymore than those freaking crista-nazi-asshats speak for all conservatives(ann and rush I mean you) but the main reason -I- oppose national health care is because it would raise my taxes even more than they already are.
Being told I have to buy health care or be fined is the most communist, anti-American thing I can imagine.
They want the American people to swallow this huge health care bill that most if not all haven't even read in it's entirety.
I am very lucky at THIS moment to have the most amazing job I have EVER had. I am making the most money I have ever made and the people I work with are great and the work isn't bad, so for me this is work place paradise.
However last year when I was unemployed, couldn't find a job to save my but and they were going to repo my truck. If some suite from the government had shown up and told me that I was now being fined, the unemployment I was getting was being taken away to pay for the health care that I should've had to begin with and that even though I'm barely making enough money off my unemployment to afford food, rent, and gas to look for a job the government was going to take MORE from me, I think I would have lost it.
I understand your situation and I am not trying to use an overly broad brush here but it's real easy to say "oh, look at this case" or look at that individual and have pity but we have too look at the whole of the health care system.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t believe Australia has close to 15 to 20 million ILLEGAL money sucking, quasi-illiterate immigrants in it's borders, we do that’s what make OUR health care issue different from any other nation.
They don’t pay taxes into our system because they have 19 kids to support back in Mexico or whatever south of the border drug infested cartel of a nation they come from and yet they want to receive the full benefits of living here. They want to get social security, have the right to vote and act like they are Americans but if you ask them they will gladly tell you they are here for 20 or so years to get a job and then go “home” to where ever they came from. I have lived in Colorado, travelled all around the border states and these Mexicans don’t want to be a part of America they want Texas and the other “stolen” lands back so they figure why not come in and drain our system.
This is based on MY personal experiences when I was in Grand Junction, Colorado back in 92-98. I went all around the area including Arizona, Utah and Texas
My solution would be to cap how much people can sue doctors for, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, and to allow more doctors to be a part of this country instead of allowing them to study here and then force them to go back to there country of origin.
Also instead of giving away so much foreign aid to those freaking hopeless African nations how about helping more students realize there dream of becoming doctors and nurses by giving more in grants, loans and other subsidies to help people here in America. That’s my point of view.
|
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable.
Like so many things in life, very little is really "black and white".
I'm not sure that a private system is preferable. At the very least, I think that many people are scared of change.
Last year, the government stepped up and decided to come up with new legislation to govern and monitor mortgage lending (which for some reason people believe is the cause of the current recession). This directly affects me -- it's what I do. They came up with an astronomically huge document that is specific and vague in the extreme. They say that you must do this -- but they don't clearly define what this is. But we could be penalized if we don't comply. Frustrating doesn't even begin to describe what we're going through -- and it doesn't really solve the problem. The consumer is still the one who ends up paying for it.
The mortgage document/rules are minor in comparison to the health care reform. And in order to accomodate everyone, it too must pretty much be specific and vague in the extreme. I think that that fact alone scares me quite a bit.
A few other things to consider.
I know quite a number of people in the military. Many of them would prefer to pay additional money to see a doctor that they know and trust than the base doctor who many don't believe is competent. At least in theory, if we go to a universal healt plan, the government can dictate who you would see -- either good or bad -- since it is paying for your health plan. They can determine whether or not you actually need certain medicines. And would there be a chance for reciprocity? We are such a sue happy society right now -- if the doctor messes up bad, who are you going to sue? The government?
A very large part of the reason we seem to have better equipment, procedures, hospitals, etc. is because we have had a largely "private" system in place. While many other countries say how great their health care systems are, they have been riding it on our shoulders. They have been using procedures and equipment that has been largely developed by us. If we went the way of other governments, I believe that many would be scared that this advancement would slow considerably down.
Then there's the doctor's point of view. In a similar way with teachers -- "those who can, do -- those who can't, teach" -- if the government severely limits what doctors can make, it could get the best and brightest to look elsewhere to make money. And I'm not sure how I feel about getting the second string squad to perform triple-bypass surgery on me.
Personally, I'm kind of torn between the two sides. I feel that I can see both sides. I'm just putting this out there for people to consider.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
For my part, I dislike the idea of government run health care because, as a government employee, I know that the government has a tendency to bollox things up. Take anything that works great, put a bureaucracy over it, and it goes straight to crap. I don't mind helping out fellow citizens who need a hand, but I gotta wonder how many folks there are out there that supposedly can't afford health care, but can sure afford cable TV. My ex was a CNA for a while, and most of her clients were people who were mooching off the system to get a free house cleaning. They were poor, but even the lady who had holes in her floor and an outhouse (yes really) still had dish network... and her son, who wasn't pitching in for her care, was driving around in a BMW. When the government runs health care, you can be sure the social vampires will be coming out of the woodwork with all kind of imagined or fraudulent illnesses just to get that dollar. And unfortunately, for the rest of us, that's going to mean a lower standard of care.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we should care for those that can't care for themselves. I just don't think the government is the best choice to decide who that is, or administer that care.
|
|
This reminds me of the old days when hospitals were run by the churches and provided free care for just about anyone who absolutely required it. Doctors and nurses were paid by charitable non-profit organizations, and it seemed that most people were happy with this system.
When the government stepped in and repealed a lot of the power that non-profit charities had over hospital regulations, that seemed to end many of the charity procedures and made hospitals slaves to the financial institutions. I suppose it is better, in the government's eye, to be slave to a financial institution than the servant of a religious one.
Anyway, there are several good ideas that other politicians have suggested: Medical savings accounts. My employer has just established one of these for us, but due to the current restraints from the government, anything not spent by the end of the year is lost. (Doesn't make much sense to me.)
And, as Dr. Paul says, if you pay your doctors in cash, they'll generally work with you to help make payment as easy as possible. Doctors want to get paid, and if it means a difference between not getting paid and getting paid, they would rather work with an individual than an insurance company.
Here in Texas, we have what I believe is called tort reform. We have a huge discount on most medical procedures by just signing an agreement not to sue. Most all necessary procedures are affordable.
Anyway, just some opinions, possibly tainted by poor information, but it seems to be working for the most part.
|
|
After the last three posts, I feel I need to say something on this issue.
Steve:
How much of your paycheck goes to Health Insurance right now? The way my paycheck's laid out, if we have universal health care pulled directly from what goes to taxes, they could raise the taxes a good 10% and I wouldn't notice the difference in my deposit. Yes, the immigration issues are a problem, but there's not much we can do there besides either a) annexing Mexico and most of Central America into the Union or b) building a 30' high concrete wall with electrified razorwire and moats (with alligators, preferably) to keep people out. AND they'd probably still find a way in since rich people love to hire illegals since it's much cheaper than paying an out-of-work American to do the same work.
Moff:
I don't think that the government will ever be able to tell anyone which doctor they can or can't see. If the AMA and AARP both support the reform, then who's against it and why? It's the Health Insurance Companies and Prescription Drug Companies that have bilked the system for every extra dollar.
Charlie:
How will this be different than what we have right now. The only way to get rid of parasites like that is to get rid of all social systems in the country. And if government doesn't take care of those that need help, who will? The rich and powerful? Corporations?
All in all, I'm reminded of something I heard the other day:
"This generation plants the trees so the next can enjoy the shade."
|
|
Anyway, there are several good ideas that other politicians have suggested: Medical savings accounts. My employer has just established one of these for us, but due to the current restraints from the government, anything not spent by the end of the year is lost. (Doesn't make much sense to me.)
I love this. My work has it too. You know who's running these? Visa, Mastercard, etc. So you're paying them a part of your paycheck every week to use against medical expenses, but if you don't spend it by the end of the year, they keep your money.
Sometimes, I appreciate what Tyler Durden was trying to accomplish in Fight Club. ;)
All in all, I'm reminded of something I heard the other day:
"This generation plants the trees so the next can enjoy the shade."
This reminds me of a story I just read today.
|
|
Well, as a purchaser, if you don't want to pay the high prices of American health-care, you can go somewhere else. That's how the free market system works. If you don't like how one provider is doing it, you go elsewhere. Generally people switch for one of two reasons: they have more money and can afford better care, or they have less money and have to downgrade.
At least, that's how it was explained to me in Economics. :P Must be a right-wing conspiracy.
|
|
Moff:
I don't think that the government will ever be able to tell anyone which doctor they can or can't see. If the AMA and AARP both support the reform, then who's against it and why? It's the Health Insurance Companies and Prescription Drug Companies that have bilked the system for every extra dollar.
I'm not terribly intimate with information on this, however a few more thoughts...
That link is back to November of '09. And in that article, it said that it would most likely be voted on that weekend. Is this in place yet? So what changed between then and now?
The government pays for the military medical. And the government tells the military who they will see to get this "benefit". It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to compare "what could be" with "what is".
Nothing in this world is free. It is still very much not clear to me what this will truly cost us. (And I'm not talking simply about money.)
I'm not necessarily opposed to this -- just pointing out that something like this is anything but an "easy" decision.
Those nasty lttle right wingers/fiscal conservatives... *sigh*
Obviously if you don't understand them the fault is theirs.
I work, I pay my taxes and pay for my healthcare. 2 weeks ago I almost died. 8 days in ICU, and additional 4 in a regular room, and now I'm recovering at home. Thank God for top notch care. No waiting, no mediocre care, top notch all the way. Not sure where things will end up financially, but that pales besides the result.
As one of the nasty people, I am sympathetic to those less fortunate to me. I wish they could have the same level of care as me. I just don't trust to the govt to provide it, or limit themselves in the process. And yes, I don't trust the insurance companies to provide it either. If I didn't pay my share they wouldn't. No delusion there. But while in the hospital there weree people on the floor nearby that had no insurance. Very noticeable by the discussions/arguments they held in the corridor outside of my room. They were receiving the same level of care that I was, provided by our tax dollars. It grinds me to hear people argue that that doesn't happen.
Could it be better? Yes. Could it be more accessible? Yes.
I hate being painted by the heartless shrew brush, but if it makes you feel better to label people like me as such go for it, but you'll never gain an understanding until you put aside your own blinders. [/rant]
|
|
That link is back to November of '09. And in that article, it said that it would most likely be voted on that weekend. Is this in place yet? So what changed between then and now?
Alas, it has nothing to do with the support from the AMA, but everything to do with filibusters and hold-ups in the House and Senate.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Well, as a purchaser, if you don't want to pay the high prices of American health-care, you can go somewhere else. That's how the free market system works. If you don't like how one provider is doing it, you go elsewhere. Generally people switch for one of two reasons: they have more money and can afford better care, or they have less money and have to downgrade.
At least, that's how it was explained to me in Economics. :P Must be a right-wing conspiracy.
Unless you can't afford to go elsewhere... not many Americans can make the trip to Canada or Britain to take care of some medical malady. (Not that they should, as they would be mooching off that countries system as much as the 'illegals' are mooching off of ours!)
The difference between most goods and services and healthcare is the issue of Necessity. You won't die if you don't get that 52" plasma, or that pair of jeans, or even that bread in the supermarket. Without that stent, or the open-heart bypass surgery, you will.
Right now, the insurance companies can tell you to drive (on your own dime!) to Atlanta twice a week(a 7 hour trip, each way) to recieve treatment for your cancer, because they won't pay for it to be done Orlando, 20 minutes from your house. And you either suck it up and do it (which is practically hell on someone undergoing Chemo), fight it and go to the local hospital anyway knowing full well you might be responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills, or watch your loved one die a withering death.
That's not something the free market can really handle.
|
|
Alas, it has nothing to do with the support from the AMA, but everything to do with filibusters and hold-ups in the House and Senate.
That link is back to November of '09. And in that article, it said that it would most likely be voted on that weekend. Is this in place yet? So what changed between then and now?
Again, I'm not entirely sure what all is involved or what is going on, but the longer this goes on, the more likely things in the document will change before it gets finalized.
Certainly more than once, a bill or document has been submitted with some other bit that may or may not necessarily be related and then it gets pushed through knowing full well that it shouldn't pass, and then it doesn't at some point -- sometimes as high as the president -- but then the representatives and/or senators can claim "but I tried to get this through" or whatever.
Here's my take on it --
We will get what we ask for -- for better or worse.
We wanted it easier to be qualified to buy a home. And we got it. Not only did we get it, the federal government required institutions to give loans to people who "qualified". And so financial institutions gave the people what they wanted because of the federal government.
Then MANY of these "qualified" people foreclosed on homes that the government forced institutions to accept -- and ironically they blamed the financial institutions. So now the government is giving to the people what they are asking for -- again -- and now only the patient person can get a home loan. And "qualified" has again taken on new meaning. (And the documentation is more confusing than ever. But that's progress for you.)
The people are demanding a new health care bill. God help us all -- we're going to get what we are asking for. The government has certainly "helped" us in the past -- I don't see why this should be any different.
Here's what gets me about this and so many other things -- there is so much to this that it is pretty much impossible to see "the big picture" in all of this. This is anything but "simple". Our entire society is set up with "X" in mind (whatever "X" entails). No other country in the world is like us -- for better or worse. This isn't about "better" or "worse". It's just different. So to even suggest that we take on some other country's policy on one fairly small aspect of how they operate and try and apply that to our entire infrastructure seems bizarre to me.
We're going to get a Health Care Bill passed. We want it. (And the truth is that we really do need something there.) But I think that we are deluding ourselves if we don't think that there will be some very serious issues with it and consequences down the road.
We wanted it easier to be qualified to buy a home. And we got it. Not only did we get it, the federal government required institutions to give loans to people who "qualified". And so financial institutions gave the people what they wanted because of the federal government.Then MANY of these "qualified" people foreclosed on homes that the government forced institutions to accept -- and ironically they blamed the financial institutions. So now the government is giving to the people what they are asking for -- again -- and now only the patient person can get a home loan. And "qualified" has again taken on new meaning. (And the documentation is more confusing than ever. But that's progress for you.)
Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices.
The architects of our economic meltdown are the finance industry, which did it deliberately, and the bipartisan decision to refuse to govern and effectively protect us from such predatory lending scams as embodied in the repeal of the Glass-Stagall Act in 1999 and the immunization of credit default swaps from regulation. It wasn't the state that made banks write bad loans. They did that all on their own.
Why did they do it? The banks offered big bonuses if you signed a pile of loans and then pretended that by spreading the risk over credit default swaps that it would never come back to bite anyone. So being rational economic actors, loan officers went out with glee and wrote piles of NINJA (No Insurance, No Job) loans. These then got aggregated into the credit default swaps and traded around like funny money. Had the majority of the loans therein been good loans, everything would have worked as planned. But they weren't and the finance industry knew it. (And in fact, the state was legally prohibited from ensuring that the majority of loans therein were good loans. Thanks, deregulation. You're the gift that never stops giving.) They planned to just ride the bubble and cash out when it popped, which is just what they did. Then they handed the government the bill.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Likewise, good on your dad doing better.
I'm not going to rehash my arguements here, but I don't see the federal goverment micromanaging healthcare to be any more successful than their other endeavours.
I don't see where it's the Federal Government's purview to maintain health insurance.
As RCP points out here Those evil insurance companies make a profit equal to .04% of the amount spent on health care. I've never understood the 'they shouldn't be making a profit' arguement. I don't see anyone saying the doctors should work for free. I like profit, profit is good. Profit allows me to buy things like books and other products. Who really thinks there would be a Paizo if the government mandated how much could be charged on RPGs?
Also as has been pointed out, Government payments don't cover the doctor's cost, and the estimates don't rely on the goverment raising those costs in a seperate bill as they've done for a while.
I don't have all the answers, I don't claim to. Heck part of my job description is to correct when phone reps screw up, so I know things can always be better. I do know this thing isn't that answer.
|
|
The architects of our economic meltdown are the finance industry, which did it deliberately, and the bipartisan decision to refuse to govern and effectively protect us from such predatory lending scams as embodied in the repeal of the Glass-Stagall Act in 1999 and the immunization of credit default swaps from regulation. It wasn't the state that made banks write bad loans. They did that all on their own.
Yes and no. It's not as simple as that. I don't care what you read about in the papers. I'm in it and I live and breathe this every day and have pretty much done so for the past 10 years.
We have had real estate brokers come to us and told us that they would send us all their business if we put all our borrowers into option ARMs. (Option ARMs are a difficult loan to accurately explain simply here -- suffice it to say that it was only really good for people who fully understood the product and probably only good for around 1% of the population.) Potential negative amortization. We lost a lot of business because we refused to do stuff like that.
Our government auditors told us that we needed to put riskier loans on our books. The federal government auditors told us this. Of course you won't read about this in the papers or online. But because we pretty much ignored them, we are financially more stable than most institutions out there right now.
A really good friend out there heard that they could get an investment property with nothing down. I looked at their stuff and told them that while they probably could find some institution that would do it for them, that they shouldn't do it. It would be a mistake. It was a mistake. They ended up buying two properties. In the end, they lost both of those properties, the property that they were in, and nearly their marriage. Just because you can find someplace that will give you what you want doesn't mean that you should.
We are continually criticized for being careful with our portfolio. Even now.
At some point, the fault should lie with the borrower. If you cannot afford the payments, then you shouldn't get the loan. Whenever people come to me asking about getting a home, I tell them to figure out what they can afford on a monthly basis and that will determine what they can afford. NOT the mortgage lender and certainly NOT the real estate broker. The real estate broker (more than just about anyone else in the transaction) has MUCH more to gain by selling you a more expensive house. But I guess that is the fault of the lender as well?
Everyone was looking for someone to pin the blame on. The truth is that there was only one entity really holding onto the note at the end (when the music stopped). So it must be their fault.
And as far as "predatory lending scams" -- most of what I've seen has been the result of independent brokers who actually have little to do with the financial institution. We had a borrower come in who was in a great deal of financial difficulty and needed a lot of cash out (while driving his Jaguar). Really bad credit and so on, but he had a VA loan. We told him that we could save him a few hundred dollars a month but that he couldn't get any cash out at this time. We told him what he needed to do to improve his credit and to come back in 6 months and we would try again. Less than two months later the loan gets paid off. We do a little research and find out that he couldn't wait and he went to a broker and got his cash, but got into a horrendous loan. Not three months after that, he came back to us, but because of what he was now in, there was little we could do. We have countless stories like this. The truth is that most financial institutions that I know really want your continued business. If people feel that they were "screwed" by you, then they won't continue the business relationship.
People feel that they want or need or deserve something. Then they get it and scream "foul".
|
|
My take on the issue is not that universal healthcare is undesirable, because obviously we want all Americans happy and healthy. The problems result from who pays, who's accountable, and who makes the choices when it comes to life and welfare of patients. I for one do not want hospitals to be another arm of the government.
I'm very pleased that doctors in America can make a substantial living because they have a necessary and costly skillset. That is a good example of the American dream, IMO. Reforming should first be brought to all the medical malpractice suits that drive up costs for everybody. Next, people tend to forget that the system we have now allows nearly everyone to get emergency medical treatment whether they can afford it or not. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the current costs make this model unstustainable. It also doesn't address the many cases that require followup treatment or life-long medication. Perhaps another step is to analyze the profit margins of major pharmacutical companies. I get the impression (though I could be wrong) that the costs of some prescriptions are totally unjustified.
This reminds me of the old days when hospitals were run by the churches and provided free care for just about anyone who absolutely required it. Doctors and nurses were paid by charitable non-profit organizations, and it seemed that most people were happy with this system.
As far as I know, some clinics still provide free care through the courtesy of charities. What's really unfortunate are all the closings or reductions of Christian hospitals because they would not agree to provide abortions, and thus could no longer gain gov't support/tax exemptions.
|
|
This statement tells you all that you need to know about the mainstream news sources..
Our government auditors told us that we needed to put riskier loans on our books. The federal government auditors told us this. Of course you won't read about this in the papers or online.
Back in the day, I read all kinds of articles on "the evil financial institution" that wouldn't give person "X" a loan. Now I hear about how "the evil financial institution" gave person "X" a loan.
I really take a lot of the news with a grain of salt. I've got a couple of good friends that have read the health care proposal -- in its entirety. (They need to get out more.) One is a doctor, one isn't. They both had some minor issues with it -- each person with different issues -- but they both seemed to indicate that it was a fairly solid proposal. I listen to what they say WAY over what the media says about it. (Oh, and by the way -- I believe that both of them would be considered "conservative".)
As far as I know, some clinics still provide free care through the courtesy of charities. What's really unfortunate are all the closings or reductions of Christian hospitals because they would not agree to provide abortions, and thus could no longer gain gov't support/tax exemptions.
Now that just strikes me as odd. Why should they be forced to perform a procedure that isn't life saving. That's like closing a clinic that refuses to perform lipo suction.
|
|
I should probably leave well enough alone.
The banks offered big bonuses if you signed a pile of loans and then pretended that by spreading the risk over credit default swaps that it would never come back to bite anyone. So being rational economic actors, loan officers went out with glee and wrote piles of NINJA (No Insurance, No Job) loans. These then got aggregated into the credit default swaps and traded around like funny money.
This isn't exactly how it works. How it works is really pretty complicated. Your loans are a commodity. The loan has "value" to someone else. Therefore it can be and often is bought and sold and traded. In order to lend out money, you need to have money to lend out. And most of the money being lent out is your own money -- you just don't know it.
There are two different points here.
There are the big companies (Bank of America, CitiBank, etc.) that use people's deposits first and then may bundle up the loans and sell them on Wall Street. With these, the government was telling these institutions to lighten up on their criteria on approving loans. This was done to help get us out of (or postpone?) a recession. And it did for the most part. It got money circulating and created jobs. These institutions then would package up their loans just like they always did. There wasn't much of a difference with these institutions between the different eligibility types. They were all just Fannie or Freddie loans. Was it deliberate? Possibly in some cases. Were there some big bonuses involved? Oh yeah -- and I still don't get that. But, again, most of these institutions were looking for continued business -- so saying that they did this deliberately doesn't necessarily make sense.
The other issue -- and possibly a larger reason for the "meltdown" -- are the more private lenders who did quite a number of "niche" or "sub-prime" loans. You can get a nice list at the implode-o-meter. Most of these companies dealt with very specific products to help a very specific group or type of borrower. In order to lend money, you need money. But they don't have their own money. They use private investors' money. But because of this and because they are often considered "high risk" loans, the interest rates were higher. Because of this, many of these investors were making really good money on these loans. The problem came -- not because they were bad loans -- but because they were perceived to be bad loans. Then, very quickly, all these private investors pulled all their money out of these institutions. Remember I said that you need money to lend money? They no longer had any money to lend out. So they went out of business. There have actually been studies that have shown that these "risky" loans are still performing better than most of the Fannie and Freddie loans. Countrywide is a prime example of what the media can do and all about perception. Countrywide was a solid financial institution. Sure they had some bad loans, but every institution expects some loans to go bad. Then some "respected" nutcase investor got on the news and said that Countrywide was shaky. Suddenly millions of investors pulled their money out of Countrywide and sure enough -- Countrywide became "shaky".
Before the meltdown, you further complicate things by getting investment firms involved. Goldman Sachs, etc. This is where all your retirement stuff is located. They make money by buying and selling stuff on Wall Street with your retirement. Mortgages were booming and were considered "safe". So then they bought huge amounts of mortgages -- risky and not. After getting all these mortgages and really encouraging more of the same lending practices, they got wind that what they had invested in wasn't all that they were hoping it was. And they tried to bail. (With limited degrees of success.)
My point to all of this is that it was very much an evolution or a process that happened. These giant investment companies (Goldman Sachs or whoever) didn't wake up one morning and say -- "Hey, there's a lot of fake money to be made with buying crap loans." The loans were already there. The process was going on long before they got involved and really had nothing to do with doing the initial lending. I'm not saying that they were "right" -- there was a lot wrong with what they were doing -- but that wasn't and isn't where the real problem is. It's just the easiest place to point the fingers at this point.
|
|
I should probably leave well enough alone.
My further point is ...
Can anyone predict the long term effects of some of these bills/decisions? I don't think that anyone thought that by lightening up on some of the lending criteria, that it would affect people's retirement funds.
Hindsight is always 20/20. It will be interesting what "hindsight" will show us with regard to the health care proposal.
Our government auditors told us that we needed to put riskier loans on our books. The federal government auditors told us this. Of course you won't read about this in the papers or online. But because we pretty much ignored them, we are financially more stable than most institutions out there right now.
But Moff, you just refuted yourself. You told us a post ago that the government was forcing banks to take bad risks on loans. Now you're telling us that they did no such thing, and using your own institution as the proof.
As far as I know, some clinics still provide free care through the courtesy of charities. What's really unfortunate are all the closings or reductions of Christian hospitals because they would not agree to provide abortions, and thus could no longer gain gov't support/tax exemptions.Now that just strikes me as odd. Why should they be forced to perform a procedure that isn't life saving. That's like closing a clinic that refuses to perform lipo suction.
I think it is less along the line of they were forced to perform abortions and more along the line that they could not receive government money if the abortions were not offered. without the government subsidy they could not function on the scale of a hospital and thus had to reduce size to a scale that could be afforded.
|
|
Our government auditors told us that we needed to put riskier loans on our books. The federal government auditors told us this. Of course you won't read about this in the papers or online. But because we pretty much ignored them, we are financially more stable than most institutions out there right now.
But Moff, you just refuted yourself. You told us a post ago that the government was forcing banks to take bad risks on loans. Now you're telling us that they did no such thing, and using your own institution as the proof.
Couple of things. We are a credit union so we were under the NCUA. So not quite the same institution as banks or other financial institutions. Also, I have a feeling that if the "meltdown" hadn't occurred when it did, it would have been more than a suggestion the next time. We still would have fought it, but we would have eventually lost. EDIT: We actually took a pretty big risk by going against NCUA like we did. It's difficult and generally not wise to take on the federal government regulating agency. They were easily within their right to shut us down.
The other main thing is HMDA and the fear that would surround that piece of legislation. HMDA was set up to prevent discriminating lending. While it didn't happen much (probably because most people don't really know about it) if I was denied a loan at bank "X" and was approved at broker "Y" I could sue bank "X" for discriminating. (Or at least attempt to do so.) I really think that many financial institutions initially were scared of this. Then when those few loans didn't go bad they lightened up a little more. (and a little more, and a little more...)
OK first let me say I am glad that your father is getting better.
I don't speak for ALL conservatives anymore than those freaking crista-nazi-asshats speak for all conservatives(ann and rush I mean you) but the main reason -I- oppose national health care is because it would raise my taxes even more than they already are.
It should not be that large an increase in taxes if it is done right. A lot of US tax payers money is wasted on subsidies to already profitable companies or propping up the highly unprofitable and inefficient parts of your agricultural system. Cut the waste and you would have plenty of free cash.
Being told I have to buy health care or be fined is the most communist, anti-American thing I can imagine.
They want the American people to swallow this huge health care bill that most if not all haven't even read in it's entirety.
Why is it communist? I am told if I don't pay my taxes I will be jailed. I can be fined for not voting (Strangely compulsory voting returns a conservative government {The Liberal party in Australia are the conservatives as they believe in the Liberalisation of the market and minimisation of big government} more often the "socialist" Labor Party). I can be fined for not paying for compulsory 3rd party car insurance.
I am very lucky at THIS moment to have the most amazing job I have EVER had. I am making the most money I have ever made and the people I work with are great and the work isn't bad, so for me this is work place paradise.
However last year when I was unemployed, couldn't find a job to save my but and they were going to repo my truck. If some suite from the government had shown up and told me that I was now being fined, the unemployment I was getting was being taken away to pay for the health care that I should've had to begin with and that even though I'm barely making enough money off my unemployment to afford food, rent, and gas to look for a job the government was going to take MORE from me, I think I would have lost it.
See this where our governments differ we scale our taxes on how much you earn. The rich pay more because they can afford too.
I understand your situation and I am not trying to use an overly broad brush here but it's real easy to say "oh, look at this case" or look at that individual and have pity but we have too look at the whole of the health care system.
Look at the whole system instead fix the waste and make sure everybody has a "Fair Go".
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t believe Australia has close to 15 to 20 million ILLEGAL money sucking, quasi-illiterate immigrants in it's borders, we do that’s what make OUR health care issue different from any other nation.
We do have problems with illegal immigrants but not on the same scale. Then again there only 20 million Australians spread across an area the size the United States.
Those immigrants that don't meet the requirements are sent back, the rest are hopefully trained to meet our need for plumbers and electricians (because every bloody parent wants their kid to be be a useless Lawyer). Studies have proved that by the second generation migrants have already paid for themselves 10 times over.
They don’t pay taxes into our system because they have 19 kids to support back in Mexico or whatever south of the border drug infested cartel of a nation they come from and yet they want to receive the full benefits of living here. They want to get social security, have...
The drug cartels are in part a US creation - if there wasn't the demand there wouldn't be the suppliers.
To stop drugs you have to make it unprofitable - very hard task with a high cost in lives and money a situation I don't envy you.
Couple of things. We are a credit union so we were under the NCUA. So not quite the same institution as banks or other financial institutions. Also, I have a feeling that if the "meltdown" hadn't occurred when it did, it would have been more than a suggestion the next time. We still would have fought it, but we would have eventually lost.
Maybe, maybe not. But if it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Considering how delicately the US government treats the finance industry, I'm not sold on it being a serious, credible threat. I mean not that long ago we gave it hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached on the industry's word alone that it would start lending again. Yet lending didn't really increase. So what did we give the money out for? If you compare this to how the auto industry was treated, the contrast is staggering. Nobody in any position of power seriously suggested just letting Goldman Sachs go bankrupt, let alone be nationalized even temporarily. The latter is what Sweden did with more or less its entire banking industry in the early 90s when faced with a very similar mortgage bubble situation. The banks were back on their feet and healthy, and in private hands, again in less than the planned time.
The other main thing is HMDA and the fear that would surround that piece of legislation. HMDA was set up to prevent discriminating lending. While it didn't happen much (probably because most people don't really know about it) if I was denied a loan at bank "X" and was approved at broker "Y" I could sue bank "X" for discriminating. (Or at least attempt to do so.) I really think that many financial institutions initially were scared of this.
If the loans are really bad, then no institution should be writing them, right? I mean you guys all get more or less the same credit scores back from applicants. The same data is available on which to make that judgment. There may be wiggle room along the margins for cases that are really on the bubble but a truly awful loan risk should be rejected by any bank and credit union. So I'm not seeing this as much of a cudgel. I do see the need for such a law, though.
Lending discrimination is a real thing. Banks in the past would refuse loans for houses if the applicants were the "wrong" color for the neighborhood. Likewise realtors would refuse to show houses to people of the wrong color who were interested in the area. On the surface it might look like it should never happen, since who wants to refuse business? But the reality is that banks and realtors, just like everyone else, are products of their cultures and need to maintain certain relations to continue to enjoy patronage. A realtor making a lot of money selling houses in an all-white area may not (ok, almost certainly does not) want to risk the goodwill of present and future clients in the area by being the one who got the block integrated. Even if it's not a certainty, it's a risk to their future business. On the face of things it might look like this should never happen, but incentives are more complicated and intertwined than that. If taking one person's custom is going to rile up a bunch of clients you already have and endanger their custom, all other things being equal you're far more likely to refuse the new customer to keep the ones you have.
Given the history here (which you can read in James Loewen's Sundown Towns if you have a strong stomach) I can't fault the state for imposing anti-discrimination regulations.
See this where our governments differ we scale our taxes on how much you earn. The rich pay more because they can afford too.
The US does that too. In fact, it used to be really good at it. That was thirty years ago now. Since then the progressiveness of our taxation has declined incredibly.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
The U.S. Treasury is broke. Medicare and Medicaid - the current goverment-run healthcare services for some of our citizens - is also bankrupt and poorly run. The rates they pay at are so low, most medical providers consider the compensation a case for charity and take it anyhow to support needy people in thier communities. So:
1 - The Federal Goverment cannot afford another super-expensive entitlement program.
2 - If they did start to run one, it would in all likelihood be as poorly run as Medicare/Medicaid and the Post Office.
Competition and the free market can and will find a way to improve on the situation - as it always has - if Government will stop interfering in the way they do business and confine itself to regulating safe practices and breaking up trusts. Lawsuit reform is also a vital way to make it more affordable for medical providers to do business without having to charge high rates just to protect themselves from outrageous and frivolous lawsuits.
That's my opinion.
|
|
I mean not that long ago we gave it hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached on the industry's word alone that it would start lending again. Yet lending didn't really increase. So what did we give the money out for?
Couple things on this. First, there were "strings attached". Quite a lot of them actually. I don't really know what they all are because -- secondly, credit unions didn't take any of the government's bailout money. What we did was we pooled together and bailed ourselves out.
As to the lending increase -- it didn't increase because more people are out of work. We (the credit union) can borrow money from the federal government for a cost of 0.25%. I did not miss the decimal point -- a quarter of a percent. This is the "overnight cost of funds". This means that we can lend out money at an incredibly low rate. I believe that our car loans are at 2.5%. (We still have to pay for the building and the employees as well as interest earned on the accounts.) And still our lending is down. The rates are there -- the people are not.
If the loans are really bad, then no institution should be writing them, right? I mean you guys all get more or less the same credit scores back from applicants. ... So I'm not seeing this as much of a cudgel.
The broker who sells the loan doesn't have any "reps and warrants". There are no consequences (or very few) to the broker compared to the financial institution. And there is much more of an interest to the broker to get the loan done than for the financial institution.
I'm also going a little further back. After that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created their "automated underwriting" systems. For the most part, if we put the information into the system and we get an "approve", we are bound by law to give that person a loan. It has nothing to do with whether or not they "should" get a loan. We may even have evidence that would suggest that it would be a bad loan. But because we got an "approve", there is little we can do.
And while "all loan apps are the same", they aren't. Those people who know the systems that Fannie and Freddie use can deliberately include or exclude or change certain bits of information to get a magic "approve". And then slip it in with an institution that is buying thousands of loans and who doesn't know John Smith at all.
Lending discrimination is a real thing. Banks in the past would refuse loans for houses if the applicants were the "wrong" color for the neighborhood. Likewise realtors would refuse to show houses to people of the wrong color who were interested in the area.
I'm not saying that it isn't. It is a very real thing and needs to be monitored. But again, it is specific and vague in the extreme. (And by the way, realtors don't really fall under HMDA.) Lenders pretty much are guilty until proven innocent with regards to HMDA and discrimination. Which means that they have to prove innocence. And that's not as easy as you might think. In order to prove that you are not discriminating on anything -- not just race, but gender, location, job, income, marital status, etc. you would have to show that you NEVER lent to anyone in a reasonably similar situation. That's actually a lot more difficult than it sounds. Add to that that there doesn't allow for any human error -- you couldn't ever have an "oops" loan -- and that makes it very difficult for the financial institution to truly prove innocence.
Discrimination is bad. Regulation of this is good. But because it is specific and vague at the same time, it potentially puts any financial institution at risk.
No matter how good a financial institution is, I can always find something that they did wrong. Is this not also true with any institution? But what are you going to sue Kinko's for? It's not going to be for the $400,000 house you didn't get. In addition what is the "cost" of bad publicity? Just ask Countrywide. At this point, the problem isn't as much the discrimination -- it's the lack thereof for fear of potential consequences.
I mean not that long ago we gave it hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached on the industry's word alone that it would start lending again. Yet lending didn't really increase. So what did we give the money out for?Couple things on this. First, there were "strings attached". Quite a lot of them actually. I don't really know what they all are because -- secondly, credit unions didn't take any of the government's bailout money. What we did was we pooled together and bailed ourselves out.
I understand credit unions and banks are under different regulatory regimes. I know it's crazily complicated too. My main point here is we used to have a regulatory system that was much better at putting a stop to these kinds of bubbles before they started. Then we gutted it. (In fact the US has spent 30 years gutting its regulatory and enforcement regimes.) That regulation didn't come out of nowhere, but arose in response to what the finance industry was doing on its own back in the 20s. (And we've done very, very well at recreating the 20s economy.) It's what market incentives drove them to and as a nation we decided that wasn't a good risk so we put regulation in place. The industries being regulated never want regulation. It's a nightmare because it's going to cut into their profits. But if their profits are shored up in part by dumping toxic waste in the drinking water (or toxic assets, etc) then better they make some sacrifices.
No matter how good a financial institution is, I can always find something that they did wrong. Is this not also true with any institution?
Sure. Nobody's perfect. But responsibility should be taken for mistakes, especially those which could have been reasonably prevented. That responsibility doesn't just go to people who suspect they probably can't afford the loan. It goes to the loan officer and the institution that took it too.
I'll certainly agree that it would have been an economic disaster to let all the big banks to bankrupt. The credit market would practically cease to exist and that would have all kinds of dire consequences even in the best of economic times. Very little has been done to fix the systematic issues, though. To date we've mostly thrown money at the problem and watched the banking executives take it in bonuses. That's a pretty poor investment.
At this point, the problem isn't as much the discrimination -- it's the lack thereof for fear of potential consequences.
I'd say they're different problems that involve the same industry. Lack of oversight, poor regulation, poor enforcement, and the easy corruption of the previous three are additional factors.
|
|
... much stuff ...
I think that mostly we're on the same page here. A few clarifications...
Responsibility for "mistakes" -- My point was that if we did a loan for someone who really shouldn't have gotten a loan and figure it out later, what should we do? Go back to the borrower and demand the house? Legally we would be in our right to do that. But the "right" thing to do is to admit we made a mistake and help them through the loan. The problem is that in the government's eyes, we have now set a precedence. Which means that if this other borrower looks the same or even a little better, if we don't give them a loan, we are now discriminating. It really doesn't matter at that point if it is a "good" or "bad" loan or even whether or not the "qualify". So you have two situations that are at odds with each other.
My main points in all of this are really two-fold.
1) We really need to start taking some of the blame on ourselves. Financial institutions didn't force people to buy homes. They didn't force people into bad loans. They may have been pressured, but if you are, seek legal advice and/or go somewhere else.
and
2) When the government steps in to regulate things, it's difficult if not impossible to figure out all the different ways it will affect things later on. If and when government health care comes into effect, I am (rightfully) nervous about the long-term effects this will have.
I'm in the U.S. and the anti-health care reform crowd seem to have a collection of the following arguments:
- "It's communist." Anti-communist hysteria was raging for years in the U.S. from the 1950's to 1989. People of those generations fear communism as an evil influence. The logic goes like this: communism is bad, so anything communists do is also bad, whether it is connected to communism or not. Communists countries had socialized medicine so, ergo, socialized medicine leads to communism. Ronald Reagan had a famous recorded speech saying almost exactly that.
- "It's not free-market capitalist." There is a very vocal and influential minority of laissez-faire free-marketeers in this country. These people are borderline anarchists as they see profit as ultimately the best source to control everything. They are anti-government control of anything and health care is just another thing that Adam Smith's Invisible Free Hand should control. In this view, people naturally become customers of the best health care insurances, hospitals, and hospitals. The bad ones lose customers to the good ones, and go out of business. Therefore, whichever company makes the most money is the best one. All the problems in the current system, they claim, are the blame of government regulation in place now, not the lack of it.
- "Anything government run is bad." Similar to the free-marketeers above, this argument comes from people frustrated with government bureaucracy--everything from waiting in line at the post office, to paying taxes, to trying to renew your driver's license.
- The "every man for himself" argument. Also similar to the above, is the notion that a "welfare state" is ultimately bad for people. Sure, people might suffer without government assistance, but it won't be for long as they will eventually find a way "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."
- "It will take *my* money and give it to *THOSE* people." Racism still exists in this country and anything seen as helping x hated minority is rallied against, even if it helps others too. For example, political commentator Glenn Beck, said that health care was "reparations" for black people.
- "It's Liberal/Democratic and everything they do needs to be fought." With a Democrat Party president in office and a Democrat Party-held Congress, those on the opposite side just want to fight *anything* to make those in power look ineffectual. It's just pure obstructionism for political gain.
- "It will attract more immigrants." Those who make this argument argue we can't afford to pay for more people coming into the country and a government health care just attracts more, especially illegal ones. Of course, the health care proposals do not cover non-citizens but proponents of this view argue that's only a cover.
- "It will raise taxes, or cut money from other things like defense." The United States is a country founded on tax protests and still has a strong anti-taxation movement. Similar to the arguments above, they simply don't want anything that will potentially raise taxes for any reason.
I think that about sums up the arguments.
I'd be interested in hearing from any left wingers that disagree with the direction reform is going? Are there any? Or do blue dog dems get kicked to the curb, due to the fiscal nature of their viewpoint?
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
Here's a few practical reasons why I am not convinced nationalized health care is a better option. Someone with more time than I can linkify if so desired.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/17/longtermcare.money
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-liv e-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634362/Twisted-priorities -that-let-the-elderly-suffer.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/07/health.familyandrelationships
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334282143887974.h tml?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement- refused-ambulance.html
http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090816_121822_7032
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8212461.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on- the-NHS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1211754/Restrictions-prescription -osteoporosis-drugs-defy-belief-says-leading-doctor.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6156076/Daughter-claims-father -wrongly-placed-on-controversial-NHS-end-of-life-scheme.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214395/Woman-bleeds-death-doctor-a ccidentally-punctures-jugular--blood-available-transfusion.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213599/Distress-family-ill-comedy- writer-wife-asked-Can-husbands-brain-research-dies.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213498/Report-warns-doctors-snub-f amilies-terminally-ill-amid-growing-use-death-pathway.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-patient s-misdiagnosed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/6208651/NHS-told -to-find-ways-of-saving-20-billion.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/6194115/Inquiry-into-hospita l-scandal-a-whitewash-relatives-say.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/20/nhs-admits-neglect-setal-kotw ani
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-c are-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/18/andy-burnham-old-age-healthca re-timebomb
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-20 09sep27,0,5111855.story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6856103.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219853/My-husband-beaten-cancer-do ctors-wrongly-told-returned-let-die.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220341/Ambulance-crew-barred-helpi ng-girl-9-fractured-skull-having-lunch.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6897569.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6493112/Attack-in-NHS-hospital -every-three-minutes.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1225323/How-junior-doctors-signin g-resuscitate-forms-dying-patients.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1224776/Over-65-Why-doctors-think -giving-latest-cancer-drugs-just-waste.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6898708.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs -is-paying-millions-to-gag-whistleblowers-1812914.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230349/Bowel-cancer-victims-UK-den ied-life-prolonging-drug-thats-free-Europe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6661925/Hundreds-of-patients-d ied-needlessly-at-NHS-hospital-due-to-appalling-care.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/8385889.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235921/Midwives-meltdown-A-NHS-w orker-reveals-understaffed-maternity-wards-sinking-chaos.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6961087.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/7386895/Ministers-ignore d-safety-warnings-for-years-over-childrens-heart-surgery.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7379983/Hundreds-of-NHS-wards- to-be-shut-in-secret-plans.html
1) We really need to start taking some of the blame on ourselves. Financial institutions didn't force people to buy homes. They didn't force people into bad loans. They may have been pressured, but if you are, seek legal advice and/or go somewhere else.
Sure, but it goes both ways. Between the constitutional presumption of innocence and the huge asymmetry between the resources of a bank, a credit union, and most private individuals it's very unlikely that most denials are going to result in lawsuits, whatever the regulations say. Which, of course, is the best argument I can think of for having the state step in and do the regulating, enforcing, and so forth. If those regulations aren't great, they can be improved. If they're not being enforced, we can ramp up enforcement. I'm not suggesting that if you signed up for a NINJA loan you should walk away like nothing happened. But likewise neither should the lending institution.
2) When the government steps in to regulate things, it's difficult if not impossible to figure out all the different ways it will affect things later on. If and when government health care comes into effect, I am (rightfully) nervous about the long-term effects this will have.
We're not omniscient; that's for sure. But just like we can for other issues we can learn from the experience of other countries, both now and in the past, and take from that to improve on and make our own solutions. The current plan is extremely modest, not being really government health care at all. It's government-mandated insurance with subsidies, more or less. This is a very inefficient way to go, since the private sector has made a great deal of money off very minor improvements in care and patient outcomes. (Compare our health statistics to those of any comparable country, like Canada, the UK, Germany, etc.) The US isn't any of those countries, but they aren't the US either. Nor are they each other. Yet they all show better health statistics for less cost than we do see.
That's not just my opinion, the Kaiser Foundation thinks we're more spendy too. And they study this for a living. And those other nations with their national universal health care achieve it through many different methods. The UK just has the state run the hospitals and clinics. Canada has private hospitals and doctors, but the state picks up the tab. Switzerland subsidizes and regulates the snot out of non-profit health insurers who are required to offer more or less identical plans and take more or less everybody.
Finally I'd direct you to the non-Americans here. None of them seem eager to try our system. I can't say the same. I'd love to try theirs. I'd especially love it if my father could get his heart pills, which he may have to be on for life, for a lot less than the several hundred dollars every three month supply requires. (If he illegally imports them from Canada, he can. But then he could be put away for a felony.) Maybe it's just me, but I'd kind of like to keep him around for a while. But right now that's not a doctor's decision. That's a financial decision. Whatever he needs to keep on ticking, he can only afford so much. (He was just laid off in late November, in fact. He was one of the lucky ones who had health insurance until then, but for more than a decade it's been eating up more and more of his paychecks. The health insurance covered his heart attack and related operation, which cost more than his life savings if we had to pay it all out of pocket.) The health decision and the finance decision aren't connected at all. He may need what he can't afford, and that's all there is to it.
Sure it's my old man. I'm biased since I think he's awesome. But I'm not the only American who has this problem in his family. I'm one of millions. If you've got a good plan and you're decently affluent, good for you. This isn't something you're likely to have to worry about. But we're not. We have these problems right now.
We're not worried about what we think might happen of health care reform passes. We're worried about what we know will happen if it fails, which is the continuation of the present system. I don't know for certain that he's going to drop dead if he has to go off his pills, but I want that to be a decision he and his doctor make together based on his health, not a decision that ends up being made based on whether or not he can afford to keep the house.
I'd be interested in hearing from any left wingers that disagree with the direction reform is going? Are there any? Or do blue dog dems get kicked to the curb, due to the fiscal nature of their viewpoint?
I think reform could go a lot better than it has. But it was sold out to the soft bigotry of low expectations. We should have started out planning a full nationalization of the health care industry and then compromised down to single payer.
Now, as for the philosophical reason:
No one is entitled to the product of another's labor.
To provide the 'entitlement' of healthcare, someone must be enslaved to the State. Now, if medical professionals are enslaved, it creates a very tense situation for patients. "Accidents" happen, after all.
That means others must be indentured and enslaved to produce stuff for the State, so that the State can pay its doctors and nurses.
Despite the whines that will inevitably arise of 'no one is enslaved' the fact remains: Someone MUST pay, and that payment will be taken without consent. Work without pay . . . sounds like slavery to me.
And through this all, none of the proponents of nationalized health care have devoted their own monies in charitable acts of giving to those without insurance. Perhaps if some (or even one) of those people were to put their money where their mouth is . . . .
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.Here's a few practical reasons why I am not convinced nationalized health care is a better option. Someone with more time than I can linkify if so desired.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/17/longtermcare.money
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-liv e-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634362/Twisted-priorities -that-let-the-elderly-suffer.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/07/health.familyandrelationships
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334282143887974.h tml?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement- refused-ambulance.html
http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090816_121822_7032
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8212461.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on- the-NHS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1211754/Restrictions-prescription -osteoporosis-drugs-defy-belief-says-leading-doctor.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6156076/Daughter-claims-father -wrongly-placed-on-controversial-NHS-end-of-life-scheme.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214395/Woman-bleeds-death-doctor-a ccidentally-punctures-jugular--blood-available-transfusion.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213599/Distress-family-ill-comedy- writer-wife-asked-Can-husbands-brain-research-dies.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213498/Report-warns-doctors-snub-f amilies-terminally-ill-amid-growing-use-death-pathway.html...
It is worth glancing at your list of sources. The vast majority your citations comes form the daily mail, it isn't by chance that the mail is known as the Daily Fail by many people. This is a paper with massive political bias and a loose attitude towards consistancy and the facts.
To illustrate, the daily mail in england campaigns against the cervical cancer vaccine, claiming that i causes paralysis and other serious side effects, while at the same time, they where campaigning for the introduction in Ireland as 'a life saving vaccine.'
It is a running joke, literally , that the daily mail has claimed coffee both causes and cures cancer.
It was the mail, in consort with the express, that where responcible for causing the current upswing in measles, mumps and rubella.
If i had a little bit of time i could find four or five times as many stories critising the NHS, and i could find twenty times as many that show up the weaknesses of the american system. All systems have faults, but here is the thing. While those papers say one thing, the data says another. The United Kingdom(at last measure) ranked higher on WHOs listing than america on health care, and where pay less for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You know what's funny? When Americans tot off a list of the NHS's failings, as if we Brits always think it's perfect, and as if the American medical system never has c&~%-ups.
Nationalised Health Care isn't perfect, but it is substantially better and cheaper then the current American model.
This reminded me of something on the other thread, how some folks thought that defending the current system or being pro-american was wrong somehow.
I dont' get this. I'd expect most of Western Civilization to argue that their country is the greatest on Earth. I mean, I see flaws in the American system, but I don't see any better.
I'd expect you to defend the NHS and the Brits in general Uzzy. Just as I defend the US system.
That said, I don't see how your system is better. I mean when's the last time someone fled ~to~ Canada or the UK for treatment? Sure there are some procedures that are better/more accepted in other countries; for example I believe Europe is farther ahead than the US on ceramic spinal replacements, and I think the British 'golden BB' approach to cancer should be adopted here post haste (even better when paired with the US's research in metasitization (sp?) problems).
But it's my understanding the majority of innovation still comes from this side of the pond, and that's a benefit of our 'inefficent' heath care system.
Last time I checked, no one here had to sue the government for the right to pay for their own health care. But that's what happened in Canada.
See here
No one should have to sue their government for the right to pay for one's own health care.
That seems like such a simple concept. Why is it that people don't get it?
Of course, my philosophical arguement is a simple concept, too. "No one is entitled to the product of another's labor." How difficult is that to understand?
As for coffee, caffine is a carcinogen. Says so right on the MSDS.
|
|
Of course, my philosophical arguement is a simple concept, too. "No one is entitled to the product of another's labor." How difficult is that to understand?
Soooo... You don't use the library? Or receive grants or attended public education? Don't support or receive support from the United Way, Salvation Army or YMCA? Have you or your relatives ever received anything from Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, or Social Security?
Last time I checked, no one here had to sue the government for the right to pay for their own health care. But that's what happened in Canada.
See hereNo one should have to sue their government for the right to pay for one's own health care.
That seems like such a simple concept. Why is it that people don't get it?
Of course, my philosophical arguement is a simple concept, too. "No one is entitled to the product of another's labor." How difficult is that to understand?
As for coffee, caffine is a carcinogen. Says so right on the MSDS.
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?
If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
Soooo... You don't use the library? Or receive grants or attended public education?
Yes, I do use a library. For that I pay taxes. If you haven't noticed, public education in the US is horrible. I decided to go to a private college. And yes, I paid for it.
Don't support or receive support from the United Way, Salvation Army or YMCA?
Charities are wonderful. The best part is that the United Way doesn't come in and demand that I pay them. I much prefer SoldierAngels, though. A higher percentage actually goes to those the charity helps.
Have you or your relatives ever received anything from Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, or Social Security?
And now you see the issue with being entitled to another's labor.
Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment were all supposed to be designed so that an "account" is set up with your name on it. If you never work, you don't get to collect Social Security. But you apparently think everyone is entitled to them. If you never work, you don't get unemployment. But people are somehow entitled to it. If you never work, you never paid in to Medicare. If you don't pay in, why should you get the benefits of someone else's labor?
Besides, I would much rather have the money my employer pays into the Unemployment Insurance program. As well as the 12.4% taken from my pay for Social Security. Do you know how much money one can have if one invests 12.4% of his pay over the course of a working life? Enough to not worry about relying on government in his senior years.
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250 years to collect that money back. Can you spell "Ponzi Scheme"?
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
You are wrong. I like the armed forces. Putting bullets into bad guys is a good thing. As for police, I like them too, but I still have a private security firm monitoring my house. Fire departments are filled with great people, but I still went out and bought fire extinguishers. Private companies provide those, you know. Some of us don't wait around for government to come fix our problems.
How would my society treat an orphan? It's called charity. Wonderful thing. It allows people with an overdeveloped sense of guilt to take care of those orphans. Meanwhile, I'll get to build my business and donate an entire building to house them. But you still don't have the right to take the product of my labour away from me. That's still called slavery.
I'm sure your father is well-engaged in society. I am, too. I provide a service that people want to use. For my skill, I am rewarded. With those rewards I can pay for my son's education, I can donate to whatever charities I wish, and I can do so without you dictating where my charity goes.
There's still the matter of my philisophy. If you are okay with enslaving others, where does that slavery end? Why not just cut out the taxpayer and directly enslave doctors and nurses? "You're a doctor, you must perform surgery on these people, and if you don't we'll put you in jail."
I don't force you to provide me food, shelter, clothing, or a job. You don't get to force me to provide you those things.
It's called mutual respect. I'm surprised more people don't possess it.
|
Now, as for the philosophical reason:
No one is entitled to the product of another's labor.
Huh? Ever heard of taxation?
To provide the 'entitlement' of healthcare, someone must be enslaved to the State. Now, if medical professionals are enslaved, it creates a very tense situation for patients. "Accidents" happen, after all.
That means others must be indentured and enslaved to produce stuff for the State, so that the State can pay its doctors and nurses.
Despite the whines that will inevitably arise of 'no one is enslaved' the fact remains: Someone MUST pay, and that payment will be taken without consent. Work without pay . . . sounds like slavery to me.
And through this all, none of the proponents of nationalized health care have devoted their own monies in charitable acts of giving to those without insurance. Perhaps if some (or even one) of those people were to put their money where their mouth is . . . .
You miss the point in your diatribe. American healthcare costs 20% of GDP. UK healthcare (thanks for the above links, by the way, but I don't think any of them prove anything much and I could probably trawl the US news websites for horror stories too if I so cared - uninsured people arriving in emergency rooms and promptly dying of complications from undiagnosed cancers, for example) costs 10% of GDP. Health outcomes between the two countries are roughly the same (average life expectancy in the UK is slightly higher, actually) so on that basis the American system is grossly inefficient while failing to provide coverage to all its citizens (unlike the UK version). Health insurance is a tax, just not paid to the government. That, in my view, is the circle to be squared, not this reactionary nonsense about enslavement and communism.