You can't make this stuff up...

[JackD201]

Coming from a country where procedures, dental and medical, cost so much less than the US, I would ask why procedures ARE so expensive there. Take a simple tooth implant. The dentist here uses US made implants and crowns, my dentist studied in the US, rent is comparable, equipment is the same, but it costs 20% less. Our electricity is higher, rent higher than most US dental clinics save those in expensive cities.

Look to the insurance companies. IMO the doctors and hospitals and not the insurers should be making the greater share of the money. Remember that insurance is based on actuarial risk assessments done to favor the insurer. If the system is creating price distortions, THAT is what needs fixing. Some factors leading to the higher fees are insurance related too! Doesn't anybody find this ironic? Insurance vs malpractice suits is one.

I say support the worker who just needs opportunity. Support the worker hampered by sickness or disability. Support those that want to work but need skills to learn. Let the lazy die. Take this from someone from a developing country. Never pamper the lazy just so you can get their votes. You might win an election but when you leave, you'll have nothing to show for it.

 

[rbbert]

The vast majority of physicians in this country know our health care is not exceptional, even without figuring cost into it. Certainly things like defensive medicine and dealing with beaurocracies (which are usually the health insurance companies, BTW) are a big part of that, not only does that increase expense it also leads to poorer care as providers lose sight of their primary goal, to help the patient. But it is also because we are far too treatment (mostly drugs) and procedure oriented, rather than focusing on actually improving a patient's health. As long as pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment makers call the shots (a situation fairly unique to the USA), our nation's health care will continue to be second rate. Just ask yourself which is the better medical care; aggressively treating someone's heart attack when he is 55, or keeping him/her from having that heart attack until he is 70.

 

[ddk]

Coming from a country where procedures, dental and medical, cost so much less than the US, I would ask why procedures ARE so expensive there. Take a simple tooth implant. The dentist here uses US made implants and crowns, my dentist studied in the US, rent is comparable, equipment is the same, but it costs 20% less. Our electricity is higher, rent higher than most US dental clinics save those in expensive cities.

Look to the insurance companies. IMO the doctors and hospitals and not the insurers should be making the greater share of the money. Remember that insurance is based on actuarial risk assessments done to favor the insurer. If the system is creating price distortions, THAT is what needs fixing. Some factors leading to the higher fees are insurance related too! Doesn't anybody find this ironic? Insurance vs malpractice suits is one.

I say support the worker who just needs opportunity. Support the worker hampered by sickness or disability. Support those that want to work but need skills to learn. Let the lazy die. Take this from someone from a developing country. Never pamper the lazy just so you can get their votes. You might win an election but when you leave, you'll have nothing to show for it.

Somebody gets it!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can't have faith in what you see but I respect and appreciate your position.



I was talking about quality of healthcare not quantity of service provided, they're usually exclusive of one another. I checked the facts, we spend more dollars than any other country for medical research, we have many of the best doctors and the best hospitals and most no. of medical innovations than other nation. And yes, we have plenty of crappy doctors and hospitals too. Most importantly we had the freedom of choice, not force purchase.

Faith hasn't been a requirement. It has just taken the experience if first managing the healthcare of a family, through private, non-group insurance, then managing the healthcare of my elderly father, in the same system, many of the same clinics and hospitals, through Medicare. There aren't a lot of things I think government can do better, and much more efficiently, but healthcare is high on the list. No faith required; undeniable evidence in my face. By the way, I don't take that as a testimony to the efficiency of big government, but as a clear sign of just how broken our healthcare system is.

Tim

 

[ddk]

Faith hasn't been a requirement. It has just taken the experience if first managing the healthcare of a family, through private, non-group insurance, then managing the healthcare of my elderly father, in the same system, many of the same clinics and hospitals, through Medicare. There aren't a lot of things I think government can do better, and much more efficiently, but healthcare is high on the list. No faith required; undeniable evidence in my face. By the way, I don't take that as a testimony to the efficiency of big government, but as a clear sign of just how broken our healthcare system is.

Tim

I'm in a similar situation as you taking care of my elderly father and for the most part have a positive experience with medicare but he does have supplementary insurance so I'm not sure exactly which takes care of what. By most accounts obamacare will have a negative impact on Medicare, we shall see. I'm a constitutional libertarian and given the quality of people in power and ignorance of the voting block the last thing I trust is big government. Pre obamacare one had options, now we don't. They could have worked on improving things instead they took over the whole health insurance market and are forcing people into it, why do we need to be force into something if its really good?

Again Tim, appreciate the cordial exchange.

david

 

[Alrainbow]

David. That is why I have homes in two states. The quality of life here in NYC is just numbing to fool us that it's great. But when I pull into my driveway in Youngsville it always makes me wonder when this will be the here and now. It's where all the Americans live. No pun intended . When I talk the first thing they remark is my accent and of course where I am from.
My answer is American and American. They smile and ask me again. Lol.
Al

 

[Whatmore]

As an outsider to the intricacies of American political thought can someone explain why it's government interference if you try to mandate health insurance but not if you spend trillions on welfare for the Wall Street wealthy ?

 

[DaveyF]

As an outsider to the intricacies of American political thought can someone explain why it's government interference if you try to mandate health insurance but not if you spend trillions on welfare for the Wall Street wealthy ?

+1

 

[ddk]

As an outsider to the intricacies of American political thought can someone explain why it's government interference if you try to mandate health insurance but not if you spend trillions on welfare for the Wall Street wealthy ?

There are many things wrong on every level with the gangs running our country, the difference is that obamacare is a law that permanently takes over 1/5 th of the economy and sucks it dry. It gives a small group permanent power over 300 million+ people, now and in the future. Feeding wall st. and banks is the administration's current policy, it's not a law and can be stopped overnight if enough people wake up and understand what's happening, not the case with obamacare.

 

[ddk]

David. That is why I have homes in two states. The quality of life here in NYC is just numbing to fool us that it's great. But when I pull into my driveway in Youngsville it always makes me wonder when this will be the here and now. It's where all the Americans live. No pun intended . When I talk the first thing they remark is my accent and of course where I am from.
My answer is American and American. They smile and ask me again. Lol.
Al

It's always good to have money and choices Al, you give up both with big government.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As an outsider to the intricacies of American political thought can someone explain why it's government interference if you try to mandate health insurance but not if you spend trillions on welfare for the Wall Street wealthy ?

Ah! in a world of nuance made simple and the simple made opaque, finally...an easy question! The answer:

The Wall Street (and every other street, and corporate, and special interest) wealthy make major contributions to political campaigns. They run the joint. Fund campaigns publicly and make anything more than picking up a politician's lunch tab bribery, resulting in immediate expulsion from office until the criminal charges are settled, and American politics would rise tomorrow morning to a whole new world.

PS: By the way, this is also why the Affordable Care Act is so screwed up. It is not, as some will tell you, a law railroaded through by one party. Tons of compromises are written into that law, and came from by politicians on both sides of the aisle, under the guiding hand of the insurance, pharma and corporate healthcare lobbies, making the stinking dog's breakfast of a law we have today. Both sides got what their benefactors wanted - preservation of private insurance, preservation of drug company profits, preservation of a bloated network of corporate healthcare providers, preservation of a hierarchy that puts administrators and insurance companies above doctors and nurses, a new customer base that's 40 million strong....and a law so hobbled that it will take a decade to make it effective, in the unlikely event that it survives.

The fact that, in the end, one side of the aisle didn't for for it after they got what they wanted is just political positioning and theater.

Tim

 

[Mosin]

Ah! in a world of nuance made simple and the simple made opaque, finally...an easy question! The answer:

The Wall Street (and every other street, and corporate, and special interest) wealthy make major contributions to political campaigns. They run the joint. Fund campaigns publicly and make anything more than picking up a politician's lunch tab bribery, resulting in immediate expulsion from office until the criminal charges are settled, and American politics would rise tomorrow morning to a whole new world.

PS: By the way, this is also why the Affordable Care Act is so screwed up. It is not, as some will tell you, a law railroaded through by one party. Tons of compromises are written into that law, and came from by politicians on both sides of the aisle, under the guiding hand of the insurance, pharma and corporate healthcare lobbies, making the stinking dog's breakfast of a law we have today. Both sides got what their benefactors wanted - preservation of private insurance, preservation of drug company profits, preservation of a bloated network of corporate healthcare providers, preservation of a hierarchy that puts administrators and insurance companies above doctors and nurses....and a law so hobbled that it will take a decade to make it effective, in the unlikely event that it survives.

The fact that, in the end, one side of the aisle didn't for for it after they got what they wanted is just political positioning and theater.

Tim

The problem with your idea is that it is unconstitutional, as the law currently exists. A change would require action on the parts of the very people who need to be controlled, the politicians. Catch-22.

Maybe the 17th Amendment needs to be revisited. It came to be due to corruption and inaction of state legislatures. Those legislatures previously had the task of selecting Senators, but were often derelict in that duty one way or another. So, the 17th Amendment was passed, so Senators could be elected directly by the people. Unfortunately, the politicians quickly learned to game that system, and a new Royal Class was born that has managed to corrupt virtually every aspect of government.

What if Senators were appointed by the Governors of each State?

 

[mep]

The problem with your idea is that it is unconstitutional, as the law currently exists. A change would require action on the parts of the very people who need to be controlled, the politicians. Catch-22.

Maybe the 17th Amendment needs to be revisited. It came to be due to corruption and inaction of state legislatures. Those legislatures previously had the task of selecting Senators, but were often derelict in that duty one way or another. So, the 17th Amendment was passed, so Senators could be elected directly by the people. Unfortunately, the politicians quickly learned to game that system, and a new Royal Class was born that has managed to corrupt virtually every aspect of government.

What if Senators were appointed by the Governors of each State?

Do you really think the process still wouldn't be corrupt? Isn't the former governor of Illinois sitting in jail for tying to sell a senate seat?

 

[es347]

There are scores of former IL pols sitting in jail

 

[Mosin]

Do you really think the process still wouldn't be corrupt? Isn't the former governor of Illinois sitting in jail for tying to sell a senate seat?

Yes, he is, but he did get caught. Also, I wonder if a governor could manage to keep a US Senator in office for fifty years. That's what we have now, so which is worse?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The problem with your idea is that it is unconstitutional, as the law currently exists. A change would require action on the parts of the very people who need to be controlled, the politicians. Catch-22.

It was more of a cry for help than an idea, but I'm curious -- which idea is unconstitutional? Public funding of political campaigns, or applying the bribery laws to politicians?

You're right, of course, that the beneficiaries of the corruption are in charge of it.'s regulation. Not a hopeful scenario, and change is only likely in the face of the threat of sweeping loss of power; revolution. But revolution doesn't necessarily have to be violent. It does, however, require a united majority, and their skill at dividing us is consummate.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

As an outsider to the intricacies of American political thought can someone explain why it's government interference if you try to mandate health insurance but not if you spend trillions on welfare for the Wall Street wealthy ?

Actually, your examples are along a continuum and point to a fundamental problem with government's attempt to mitigate the consequences of failure in society. For a free market economy to function properly, there must be a balance between reward and failure. The threat of potential failure tempers excessively risky behavior. By apparently limiting the consequences of failure, be it at large financial institutions, i.e. "too big to fail" or at an individual level, the government skews this delicate balance and shifts risk to third parties (the so called "forgotten man"). One could argue that it's no big deal to mitigate failure at the individual level, but when there are 300 million+ individuals in a society, the risks become wide-spread and less obvious; with the unintended consequence of compounding risks. The ultimate irony is that these well-intended attempts to minimize individual and isolated business failures serve only to create larger, systemic risks make our economy inherently more unstable.

 

[Mosin]

Actually, your examples are along a continuum and point to a fundamental problem with government's attempt to mitigate the consequences of failure in society. For a free market economy to function properly, there must be a balance between reward and failure. The threat of potential failure tempers excessively risky behavior. By apparently limiting the consequences of failure, be it at large financial institutions, i.e. "too big to fail" or at an individual level, the government skews this delicate balance and shifts risk to third parties (the so called "forgotten man"). One could argue that it's no big deal to mitigate failure at the individual level, but when there are 300 million+ individuals in a society, the risks become wide-spread and less obvious; with the unintended consequence of compounding risks. The ultimate irony is that these well-intended attempts to minimize individual and isolated business failures serve only to create larger, systemic risks make our economy inherently more unstable.

...as is evidenced by the loss of 1.8 trillion dollars of the US economy in recent weeks, not to mention a 3+ trillion loss worldwide. Media doesn't know what to do with that, so they ignore it. Unfortunately, it cannot be ignored for long.

 

[edorr]

...as is evidenced by the loss of 1.8 trillion dollars of the US economy in recent weeks, not to mention a 3+ trillion loss worldwide. Media doesn't know what to do with that, so they ignore it. Unfortunately, it cannot be ignored for long.

Check your economic 101 textbook. GDP ("The US economy") is about 16 trillion per year. If 1.8 trillion of (completely artificially created) nominal value of stocks gets wiped out, there is a minor wealth effect (i.e. people spending less), estimated by economists as about 1-2% of the decline in value of stocks, so this a paltry 25 billion, or less than 0.2% of GDP. Also, value of stocks (and assets in general) have been jacked up through monetary policy in the wake of the crisis, so this is a very minor correction.

 

[zztop7]

For a free market economy to function properly, there must be a balance between reward and failure. The threat of potential failure tempers excessively risky behavior. By apparently limiting the consequences of failure, be it at large financial institutions, i.e. "too big to fail" or at an individual level, the government skews this delicate balance and shifts risk to third parties (the so called "forgotten man").

!!! Excellent Statement !!!

My addition & thought: shifts risk [& only the negative risk] to the hard working taxpayer.

zz