• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 300 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
You said profit's imperfect. One of its imperfection means that profit can continue without "economic growth" that translates into employment.

If that's how you let things go.

I don't look at my income as profit either. It's something I have to deal with in order to keep living and to be able to do the work that I want.

The flip side to that are that the machine would eventually have been invented one way or another. A history of devices would indicate that much.

Alternatively, how many people's lives have been imisserated because hospital or medical policies and procedures demand that they have MRI's even when they have no immediate means of covering the procedure.

Worse still, those who do need the procedure and can't pay.
You said profit's imperfect. One of its imperfection means that profit can continue without "economic growth" that translates into employment.
Certain markets transcend economies. Sex and drug trades for example.

I don't look at my income as profit either
You should. You are your own micro-economy.

The flip side to that are that the machine would eventually have been invented one way or another. A history of devices would indicate that much.
Sure... there's innovation, progression, modernization. But we will always need people.

Alternatively, how many people's lives have been imisserated because hospital or medical policies and procedures demand that they have MRI's even when they have no immediate means of covering the procedure
People always have the right to refuse. Unnecessary procedures are far more likely to be a result of defensive medicine practices.

Worse still, those who do need the procedure and can't pay
Those that can't pay, don't. Hence you have this;

Originally Posted by gobuck
Had out-patient surgery a few years ago and this is how the bill was broken down:

Anesthesiologist $ 250.00
Surgeon $ 750.00
Hospital $5500.00

I arrived at the hospital at 6:30 am and was out by 11:30am.


What is wrong with this picture?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
That is a little bit of crazy talk. I have lived both systems and there are some advantages of the Canada system but most of what I have found is this.

It depends on where you are for what type of doctors care you can get. For example in Newfoundland there are not many experts that want to be on this island. So it is impossible to get good care for something like a SHATTERED FINGER. I know because it happened to me.

I went to my General Prac. doctor who sent me to the Hospital for X-ray's. They say it is broken / compound fracture basically shattered and you need to see a surgeon. Guess what.... surgeon decides that I can wait for a week. Makes an appointment that I had to wait 3 hours past the actual time and when I do see him ...HE says...long story short...It is already healing up the way it is ...no need for surgery.

I went on vacation to Japan. I bump it in the airport handling my luggage. Decide that the pain is too much so see a doctor on the next day. No appointment just walk into a orthopedics's office and 45 minutes later. I get x-rays and told that I have to have surgery immediately or else my finger is as good as nothing.

So what type of care you looking to get Velo??? I hope you don't wind up in some place within Canada where all the doctors decided to go into America to make money!
I would put the x-ray up but I don't know how to upload a pdf to my photobucket account. I will photo it tomorrow maybe and put it up.
Velo's right. Not operating on your finger is a helluva lot more efficient than operating on your finger and much, much cheaper. So you lose the use of your finger... you still have nine others. Quit yer bitching.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
That is a little bit of crazy talk. I have lived both systems and there are some advantages of the Canada system but most of what I have found is this.

It depends on where you are for what type of doctors care you can get. For example in Newfoundland there are not many experts that want to be on this island. So it is impossible to get good care for something like a SHATTERED FINGER. I know because it happened to me.
Using Newfoundland as an example of the Canadian health care system is like using rural Alaska as an example of the US system.

I hope you don't wind up in some place within Canada where all the doctors decided to go into America to make money!
They don't, Glenn. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/phantoms-in-the-snow-ctd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheIncidentalEconomist+(The+Incidental+Economist+(Posts))

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been tracking doctors' destinations only since 1992. Since then, between 60 and 70 percent of physicians who emigrate have headed south of the border. In the mid-1990s, the number leaving for the U.S. spiked at about 400 to 500 a year. However, in recent years, this number has declined, with only 169 physicians leaving for the States in 2003; 138 in 2004; and 122 in each of 2005 and 2006. These numbers represent less than half a percent of all doctors working in Canada.

In 2003, net emigration became net immigration. Let me say that again. More doctors were moving into Canada than were moving out.
~65,000 active physicians in Canada. 122 moved to the US.

In fact, it's quite the opposite:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/meme-busting-doctors-are-abandoning-canada-in-great-numbers-to-work-here/

Except for Austria and Germany, fewer doctors were satisfied practicing medicine in the United States in 2009 than in any other surveyed country. That includes Canada. And it was before health care reform, so you can’t blame any dissatisfaction on the PPACA. They also asked physicians what they thought about the health care system (again this was before the PPACA): Except for Germany, more physicians in the United Sates felt that the system needed to be completely rebuilt than physicians in any other country. The United States tied with Germany for last with an overwhelming 82% of physicians who thought the system needed fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt. So let’s stop pretending that doctors in outer countries are miserable, and practicing in the Unites States is paradise.
Know what else? Canadians aren't flooding into the US either.



Know what's even more interesting? Medical tourism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048020/Medical-tourism-Why-Americans-going-abroad-surgery-save-money.html
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hey, nothing's perfect, not even profit.

If you think market forces and the profit motive have not been a huge boon to the medical field over the centuries then you are just wrong.
The profit motive applied to healthcare is the reason it is far easier to receive treatment for erectile dysfunction than for polymyositis in this country.
Find cures for the things that the most people will pay the most money for, not those that cause the most suffering.
 
Hugh Januss said:
The profit motive applied to healthcare is the reason it is far easier to receive treatment for erectile dysfunction than for polymyositis in this country.
Find cures for the things that the most people will pay the most money for, not those that cause the most suffering.
Never mind the fact that erectile dysfunction is frequently avoidable through other life choices that require no intervention from the medical industry.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
The profit motive applied to healthcare is the reason it is far easier to receive treatment for erectile dysfunction than for polymyositis in this country.
Find cures for the things that the most people will pay the most money for, not those that cause the most suffering.
That's just completely backwards. The most R&D monies are spent on the cutting edge. ED meds were being developed for other purposes, but don't let the facts get in your way.

There's a reason why the US has the best cancer treatments with the best outcomes in the world. Ours are the best, most cutting edge medical device companies in the world.

Take away incentive and innovation disappears.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
That is a little bit of crazy talk. I have lived both systems and there are some advantages of the Canada system but most of what I have found is this.

It depends on where you are for what type of doctors care you can get. For example in Newfoundland there are not many experts that want to be on this island. So it is impossible to get good care for something like a SHATTERED FINGER. I know because it happened to me.

I went to my General Prac. doctor who sent me to the Hospital for X-ray's. They say it is broken / compound fracture basically shattered and you need to see a surgeon. Guess what.... surgeon decides that I can wait for a week. Makes an appointment that I had to wait 3 hours past the actual time and when I do see him ...HE says...long story short...It is already healing up the way it is ...no need for surgery.

I went on vacation to Japan. I bump it in the airport handling my luggage. Decide that the pain is too much so see a doctor on the next day. No appointment just walk into a orthopedics's office and 45 minutes later. I get x-rays and told that I have to have surgery immediately or else my finger is as good as nothing.
Sounds like we should switch to a Japanese-style system.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
That's just completely backwards. The most R&D monies are spent on the cutting edge. ED meds were being developed for other purposes, but don't let the facts get in your way.

There's a reason why the US has the best cancer treatments with the best outcomes in the world. Ours are the best, most cutting edge medical device companies in the world.

Take away incentive and innovation disappears.
Considering that we spend nearly twice as much as everyone else, you'd think we'd be doing better, even in cancer survival rates.


Yet even there, we're barely ahead of Canada and Japan beats us in colorectal cancer survival. Huh.

Too bad we suck at just about everything else.
Americans die far more frequently than their counterparts in other countries as a result of preventable or treatable conditions, such as bacterial infections, screenable cancers, diabetes and complications from surgery.

In 2006-07, the U.S. recorded 96 preventable deaths per 100,000 people. By comparison, France, with the best performing healthcare system, recorded just 55 deaths per 100,000.

And while the U.S. improved between 1997-98 and 2006-07, other countries made more progress. Ireland and Great Britain, which had higher mortality rates than the U.S., now have lower rates.

“We are slipping behind,” said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, one of the report’s authors.

The poor outcomes reflect the widespread problems that millions of Americans have getting access to health insurance and healthcare, the authors found.

In 2010, 44% of adults in the U.S. ages 19-64 either did not have insurance at some point during the year or did not have adequate insurance to cover their needs, up from 35% in 2003.

And a third of adults did not get medical care, did not fill a prescription, or skipped a needed test or treatment because of cost.

In Great Britain, just 5% of adults reported such an access problem.

Despite the problems with access and quality, however, the U.S,. continues to spend far more than other industrialized nations on healthcare, with per-capita spending on healthcare now topping $8,000 a year, more than twice what most other industrialized countries spend.
We're spending more and more for less and less and lower and lower quality.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."

The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.

Britain, whose nationalized healthcare system was widely derided by opponents of U.S. healthcare reform, ranks first in quality while the Netherlands ranked first overall on all scores, the Commonwealth team found.

U.S. patients with chronic conditions were the most likely to say they gotten the wrong drug or had to wait to learn of abnormal test results.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
aphronesis said:
Never mind the fact that erectile dysfunction is frequently avoidable through other life choices that require no intervention from the medical industry.
Mortality rate is pretty low as well, unless one dies of embarrassment. :cool:
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
That's just completely backwards. The most R&D monies are spent on the cutting edge. ED meds were being developed for other purposes, but don't let the facts get in your way.

There's a reason why the US has the best cancer treatments with the best outcomes in the world. Ours are the best, most cutting edge medical device companies in the world.

Take away incentive and innovation disappears.
As usual I say polymyositis and you respond with cancer.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I'm sorry. Thought we were having a broader discussion of how ****ty our healthcare system is.
Well yes we were, but my point was that our profit oriented system ignores things that only effect a small percentage of the population, even though the effect on those people is extreme. Sorry you missed that.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Hey look... Now that he's in and and we have to deal with him for another 4 years the truth is starting to bubble to he surface.

Obama Prepares To Screw His Base

President Obama's enemies often accuse him, in the starkest political terms, of crudely acting to shift resources toward his political base: green-energy donors, single women, Latinos, African-Americans.
But the next 12 months are likely to reveal the opposite. Imminent elements of Obama's grandest policy move, the health-care overhaul known as ObamaCare, are calculated to screw his most passionate supporters and to transfer wealth to his worst enemies.
The passionate supporters are the youth, who voted for him by a margin of 60% to 36%, according to exit poll samples of people 29 and under. His enemies are the elderly: Mitt Romney won 56% of the votes from people 65 and over. And while one of ObamaCare's earliest provisions was a boon to the young, allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance through the age of 26, what follows may come as an unpleasant surprise to many of the president's supporters. The provisions required to make any kind of health insurance plan work — not just ObamaCare, but really any plan of its sort — require healthy young people to pay more in health insurance than they consume in services, while the elderly (saved by Sarah "Death Panels" Palin from any serious attempt to ration expensive and often futile end-of-life care) consume far more than they pay in. There is always a push and pull, however, and this year will be spent laying plans to shift the burden further toward the young.
Meanwhile the AARP, the implacable lobby for retired people, has been energetically making the case that the young should pay up.
In an interview, AARP legislative policy director David Certner didn't contest the suggestion that young people would be forced to pay more, but argued that it was a matter of the common good, not simply the interest of his constituents.
First of all, he told BuzzFeed, the young may not be paying their fair share: "Younger people pay less in taxes than they do when they're middle aged and have higher incomes."
And second, they'll be old someday too:
"It's about having a big insurance pool because everyone benefits from it," Certner said. "If a younger, healthier person is spending a little more now, it's OK because at some point they're going to be a less healthy, older person too."
This is a reasonable policy argument, though it's worth noting that every interest group argues its interests are identical to the common good. Cutting my taxes will stimulate the economy; spending on defense technologies will protect the homeland; maintaining my work rules will protect students; etc.
Oh the rubes that voted for this **** again... My, my, my.


Hey kids, get the F off my lawn... But not before you pay down my health insurance cost. lmao.

Funny how this has been known by high information voters from the get-go.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obama-healthcare-young-people
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hey look... Now that he's in and and we have to deal with him for another 4 years the truth is starting to bubble to he surface.

Obama Prepares To Screw His Base





Oh the rubes that voted for this **** again... My, my, my.


Hey kids, get the F off my lawn... But not before you pay down my health insurance cost. lmao.

Funny how this has been known by high information voters from the get-go.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obama-healthcare-young-people
High information voters usually do a little bit of research to make sure something is true. You might want to consider doing that sometime. Like now.
 
aphronesis said:
Well, if that's the case, why waste months complaining about unemployment, etc. Plenty of people are still making profit. You are aware of those figures?

So no problem. Profit's not an independent entity. It's a construct that's agreed upon. Seems there are slightly fewer people in agreeing on it these days in the conventional terms.

I think until the last couple of centuries that power (understood here as separate from monetary wealth) was equally at work in driving the medical "field," which, by the way, wasn't really a field in your sense until the last couple of centuries, as were other socio-cultural factors that didn't--or don't--always fall under the rubric of "profit."

But again, and here's the question, a boon to the field or to the field and its objects of treatment. What's the valid distribution there? Would you say it's still the same now under current market conditions?

Saying any of this is not to defend Obamacare (or Hillarycare had it been), as that's obviously not the type of reform needed.
He simply doesn't get that there is a difference between profit and investments, for which the presence of the former does not necessarily assure an incrementation of the latter.

On the other hand, weren't progressive democratic institutions supposed to "correct," or at least mitigate, the most craven, predatory and self-serving human instincts in the interest of civil cohesion? Isn't this what was meant by the "social conquests"? Conquests that neoliberalism is working unremittingly against to expunge in favor of all the business interests, which means pure profit as the driving social value within its ideological framework?

There are, however, incentives to cure disease and provide medical treatment beyond the merely lucrative perks of free-market capitalism. Every socialized healthcare system has them and they have been doing just fine. However, being that we live in a market driven world, most countries with universal healthcare also have access to private clinics, so both objectives are satisfied: everyone has at least basic coverage, while the medics can increase their revenues at the clinics.

Finally Scott shows little concern for that human capital, which is any nation's only true resource in terms of its own future prosperity. How do the neoliberals see merit in investing in that? Simply allowing competition and profit to be the only rules of the game eventually will lead to a not optimal availing of this other resource, which is a good argument beyond the tedious moral casuistries for having excellent public education and healthcare systems.

PS: In the real world besides a Darwinian, survival-of-the fittest ethos - if we wish to hyper-rationalize everything the way our resident expert on human behavior claims to do - then many worthy units get eliminated by such "natural selection," who, under more favorable circumstances, would have potentially made formidable contributions. It has always seemed to me that working towards building those more favorable circumstances for the largest number of units is what was meant by progressive policy politics.

I realize, though, that building such a society qualifies a number of methods, which neither the State nor its policy can exclusively bring to fruition. Though without them progressive democracy is destined to fail as it is currently under the sway of neoliberalism.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Hey look... Now that he's in and and we have to deal with him for another 4 years the truth is starting to bubble to he surface.

Obama Prepares To Screw His Base





Oh the rubes that voted for this **** again... My, my, my.


Hey kids, get the F off my lawn... But not before you pay down my health insurance cost. lmao.

Funny how this has been known by high information voters from the get-go.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obama-healthcare-young-people
Yes, this was evident within the first year.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
All kinda of good stuff on the web tonight.




Thanks for this, Scott. I am mightily impressed - as we all should be - that our rate of "intentional homicides" is lower than Central America, Papua-New Guinea, and Greenland.

I'm gonna stop banging my head against the wall once I draw blood......
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh the rubes that voted for this **** again... My, my, my.
Move along wingnuts, nothing to see here. This is standard practice in every (national) health system in every other modern, civilized nation. I have never, ever, heard of young people anywhere complaining that they have to pay in more than old people. Keep trying to pervert a national health care system as some sort of socialist redistribution of wealth. The only fools who will believe this are the fools who already believe it. Sadly, there simply is no cure for being stupid and gullible.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for this, Scott. I am mightily impressed - as we all should be - that our rate of "intentional homicides" is lower than Central America, Papua-New Guinea, and Greenland.

I'm gonna stop banging my head against the wall once I draw blood......
I know man. Sometimes when things are put into perspective what we thought we knew turns out not to be the case.

It's frustrating.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
BroDeal said:
Sounds like we should switch to a Japanese-style system.
Their system works very well. You can take advantage of the social system if you want or you can actually pay to up your type of care or if you prefer a specific doctor who has some added cost. The social health care will pay up until a point for those special doctors that you might want and then the additional cost is on you. It is pretty good in my opinion.


In Canada or here in Newfoundland from what I know ....YOU have no choice...there is no way to pay up for care or anything. Basically you are ****ed.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
Using Newfoundland as an example of the Canadian health care system is like using rural Alaska as an example of the US system.

They don't, Glenn. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/phantoms-in-the-snow-ctd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheIncidentalEconomist+(The+Incidental+Economist+(Posts))

~65,000 active physicians in Canada. 122 moved to the US.

In fact, it's quite the opposite:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/meme-busting-doctors-are-abandoning-canada-in-great-numbers-to-work-here/



Know what else? Canadians aren't flooding into the US either.



Know what's even more interesting? Medical tourism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048020/Medical-tourism-Why-Americans-going-abroad-surgery-save-money.html
You say using Newfoundland and Labrador as an example is like Alaska. So I guess that means the good folks in places like Alaska...deep south states ....rural west...Will have a horrible affordable health care plan! WTF velo??? If that is the way a social system is to work then it will be a piece of **** plan.

Why when you ask doctors here they say that a large amount of there peers have went south. Does that not show up on some pie chart somewhere? I don't have time to get into google and find some wordpress blog etc.

Canadian system does have some good points. For example you get care at a GP that will hopefully solve your ills. Another down side. The prescription insurance comes from either yourself or employer not government provided.

Time for me to move full time to Japan.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS