Re: Socialism and Medicine

[Guest guest]

You guys crack me up. I've been studying Health Care Politics for a

while.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is a well-written, balanced essay on " single-payer "

> health

> > > care.

> > > > > > The author is a " free-market " user of alternative health

> and

> > > standard

> > > > > > health care. - Lenny

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Socialism and Medicine

> > > > > > by L.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://is.gd/8kpw

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The study of Socialism or Health Care Politics doesn't make either

effective.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is a well-written, balanced essay on " single-

payer "

> > health

> > > > care.

> > > > > > > The author is a " free-market " user of alternative

health

> > and

> > > > standard

> > > > > > > health care. - Lenny

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Socialism and Medicine

> > > > > > > by L.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://is.gd/8kpw

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

-snip-

I

> will gladly pay a share of my income towards improving the lives of

> all people. It will enrich my own life if my neighbors have what

> they need. We are a rich country and should be able to provide for

> the minimal needs of our population.

-snip-

Well, as Mason once said to Dixon, where do you draw the line? Just

how far should we go in redistributing the wealth from the haves to

the have-nots? The American people have adopted some socialist-like

programs into law (progressive taxes, welfare) to give people

entitlement " rights " and have had mixed results. The more wealth gets

redistributed, the less people have/take responsibility over their

personal behavior. It's why totalitarian socialism (communism and

fascism) have failed everywhere it's been tried. When you try to

eliminate the capitalists " middlemen " , you kill the golden goose of

individual incentive and innovation.

The fire in the belly of the American wealth machine is individualism,

not socialist mandates. But I do see some socialist programs

necessary, like taking out insurance, to take the rough edges off the

sharp turns and jabs of a free market economy. But I think

single-payer health care is too deep and wide a plunge into government

control over our lives, literally.

Lenny

[Guest guest]

You have been studying for a while, so that makes you a expert even though

thousands of

well intentioned people, who have studied more than you and have greater

credentials

disagree. Peggy gets it and she articulated details, instead of again trying to

persuade us

by your two lightweight statements. We are kicking your ass on this because you

have

offered zero substance. What the hell is " You guys crack me up. I've been

studying Health

Care Politics for a while. " You followed up that statement with NOTHING! Does

that give

you higher intelligence than us simple freedom loving simple folk who have two

teeth and

a 5th grade education? I want to hear you justify your economics and logic on

how your

model can work.

As far as our Mass. Liberal friend says about I don't know, I would strongly

urge you to

consider looking at how vouchers or a market/choice based system would work and

compare it to a big government controlled system. You do NOT have a right to

all of this

STUFF! Says who?I know you have good intentions and so does the other side of

the

argument. We are the most generous, compassionate and caring country in the

world. We

are not perfect and have many problems. The further escalation of socialism and

decline

of freedom will cause many greater problems for future generations.

Mike

Who doesn't want the government taking over another 20% of our economy and

selecting the interests that empower them to receive the lions share of the

money they

have stolen from the people who earned it.

In order to get cradle to grave big government health care shouldn't you have to

demonstrate that you are engaging in trying to maintain or improve your health?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is a well-written, balanced essay on " single-payer "

> > health

> > > > care.

> > > > > > > The author is a " free-market " user of alternative health

> > and

> > > > standard

> > > > > > > health care. - Lenny

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Socialism and Medicine

> > > > > > > by L.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://is.gd/8kpw

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Lennys comments were well stated and reinforces my views and comments.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is a well-written, balanced essay on " single-payer "

> > > health

> > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > The author is a " free-market " user of alternative health

> > > and

> > > > > standard

> > > > > > > > health care. - Lenny

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Socialism and Medicine

> > > > > > > > by L.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > http://is.gd/8kpw

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The rhetoric I hear draws a false dichotomy between a purely

capitalistic system and a single-payer system that

prohibits personal choice. As I said before, I think that it's

possible to have a healthcare model that provides care for everyone

while allowing individual choice.

As far as redistribution of wealth and personal responsibility? Do

we hold autistic kids responsible for their condition? How about

the homeless menatlly ill? Are the working poor irresponsible?

There are some groups that need the help of the collective community

IMO. I understand that there are many people who disagree but

that's my view.

>

> -snip-

>

> I

> > will gladly pay a share of my income towards improving the lives

of

> > all people. It will enrich my own life if my neighbors have

what

> > they need. We are a rich country and should be able to provide

for

> > the minimal needs of our population.

> -snip-

>

> Well, as Mason once said to Dixon, where do you draw the line? Just

> how far should we go in redistributing the wealth from the haves to

> the have-nots? The American people have adopted some socialist-

like

> programs into law (progressive taxes, welfare) to give people

> entitlement " rights " and have had mixed results. The more wealth

gets

> redistributed, the less people have/take responsibility over their

> personal behavior. It's why totalitarian socialism (communism and

> fascism) have failed everywhere it's been tried. When you try to

> eliminate the capitalists " middlemen " , you kill the golden goose of

> individual incentive and innovation.

>

> The fire in the belly of the American wealth machine is

individualism,

> not socialist mandates. But I do see some socialist programs

> necessary, like taking out insurance, to take the rough edges off

the

> sharp turns and jabs of a free market economy. But I think

> single-payer health care is too deep and wide a plunge into

government

> control over our lives, literally.

>

> Lenny

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > -snip-

> >

> > I

> > > will gladly pay a share of my income towards improving the

lives

> of

> > > all people. It will enrich my own life if my neighbors have

> what

> > > they need. We are a rich country and should be able to provide

> for

> > > the minimal needs of our population.

> > -snip-

> >

> > Well, as Mason once said to Dixon, where do you draw the line?

Just

> > how far should we go in redistributing the wealth from the haves

to

> > the have-nots? The American people have adopted some socialist-

> like

> > programs into law (progressive taxes, welfare) to give people

> > entitlement " rights " and have had mixed results. The more wealth

> gets

> > redistributed, the less people have/take responsibility over their

> > personal behavior. It's why totalitarian socialism (communism and

> > fascism) have failed everywhere it's been tried. When you try to

> > eliminate the capitalists " middlemen " , you kill the golden goose

of

> > individual incentive and innovation.

> >

> > The fire in the belly of the American wealth machine is

> individualism,

> > not socialist mandates. But I do see some socialist programs

> > necessary, like taking out insurance, to take the rough edges off

> the

> > sharp turns and jabs of a free market economy. But I think

> > single-payer health care is too deep and wide a plunge into

> government

> > control over our lives, literally.

> >

> > Lenny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Debbie, I don't think it is rhetoric, but, reality. In a single payer system

who will

have the ultimate power and say on which treatments are covered and what dollar

amounts? The answer is government. They will reward the powers that empower

them.

This is dangerous and will lead to a inefficient use of the money, and keep new

and

promising treatments from gaining acceptance or access to the market, i.e. the

people

who need these. If you remove the creative, research and entrepreneurial

process from

the equation you will stifle the engine that will will develop solutions for our

overall health

care needs. I am not talking about big pharma either, who gets enough

government

money indirectly.

Vouchers in both health care and education are really the best way to go if you

are going

to redistribute the wealth or have a single payer system. This enables

effective and

efficient models and treatments to gain acceptance and ultimately weeds out the

bad or

wasteful models and treatments. It gives the consumer the ultimate choice which

is what

we need. It cannot be a open wallet with no financial limits, but, choice with

limited

government intervention is better for most Americans.

Of course we don't hold all people responsible, but, we should hold more

responsible.

Sorry if you think that sounds harsh, but to many are using and abusing the

social safety

net and think it is a hammock. Because of that and high taxes many on this list

who work

hard cannot afford their biomedical treatments, bills, and have to make huge

sacrifices to

support many(seniors being a big one) who do not need government handouts.

Remember this thread became one of saying small business should go under if they

can't

afford to pay for health insurance. A typical plan costs over $1,000.00 per

month. The

same folks expect the same small business to step up and support the community,

which

they do. Most small business owners make under $100,000 a year and support

little

league, homeless shelters, churches, benefit events and non profits. I don't

see phizer or

merck billboards lining the outfield fence in our little league fields. Debbie,

where is the

money going to come from if we continue to raise taxes, destroy the small

business

economic engine and turn the money over to government? I think we are all

compassionate, but, I happen to think that IF government is going to tax and

mandate

health care then remove as many administrative layers as possible and give the

control to

the people, who will empower the best market solutions and emerging treatments.

Most

politicians will never do this, because they simply think they are able to spend

your money

better than you can......Like on bailing out international toxic assets like

Citicorp.

Mike

> >

> > -snip-

> >

> > I

> > > will gladly pay a share of my income towards improving the lives

> of

> > > all people. It will enrich my own life if my neighbors have

> what

> > > they need. We are a rich country and should be able to provide

> for

> > > the minimal needs of our population.

> > -snip-

> >

> > Well, as Mason once said to Dixon, where do you draw the line? Just

> > how far should we go in redistributing the wealth from the haves to

> > the have-nots? The American people have adopted some socialist-

> like

> > programs into law (progressive taxes, welfare) to give people

> > entitlement " rights " and have had mixed results. The more wealth

> gets

> > redistributed, the less people have/take responsibility over their

> > personal behavior. It's why totalitarian socialism (communism and

> > fascism) have failed everywhere it's been tried. When you try to

> > eliminate the capitalists " middlemen " , you kill the golden goose of

> > individual incentive and innovation.

> >

> > The fire in the belly of the American wealth machine is

> individualism,

> > not socialist mandates. But I do see some socialist programs

> > necessary, like taking out insurance, to take the rough edges off

> the

> > sharp turns and jabs of a free market economy. But I think

> > single-payer health care is too deep and wide a plunge into

> government

> > control over our lives, literally.

> >

> > Lenny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mike, it depends on the government and the populace. In the case of

the US, you may be right because we're sheep. Whereas a Parisian

doctor I met told me an interesting story of how afraid of " the

people " the French government is. At the behest of American

psychopharmaceutical manufacturers, some in French govt. and medicine

wanted to bring in a " teenscreen " style mental health screening

program as a thinly veiled way to start drugging more French kids.

The program was literally laughed out of existance before inception.

Housewives confronted medical authorities, calling the

program " stupide " . The French also demonstrate and their news cameras

show up for it.

It would take decades to get Americans more involved in their system

of government, which is why government control currently poses more

of a threat. We would need massive checks and balances, independent

watch-dogging, etc., for a single-payer system to work with actual

integrity. Of course when we have massive regulatory capture in the

US, this doesn't build confidence.

But if-- through some magic-- a single-payer system could work, it

would be great because it's revolting to see children die in the US

because of lack of coverage or because of poor coverage. I have no

religious attitude toward " socialism " (our police force

is " socialist " in a sense). I'm neither frightened by the term nor

attracted to it. I just don't think we have anything close to an

actually " free " market either. Because a free market has never

existed, it's hard to say whether it works or not. We now have

socialism for our corporations as a lot of people have pointed out.

> > >

> > > -snip-

> > >

> > > I

> > > > will gladly pay a share of my income towards improving the

lives

> > of

> > > > all people. It will enrich my own life if my neighbors have

> > what

> > > > they need. We are a rich country and should be able to

provide

> > for

> > > > the minimal needs of our population.

> > > -snip-

> > >

> > > Well, as Mason once said to Dixon, where do you draw the line?

Just

> > > how far should we go in redistributing the wealth from the

haves to

> > > the have-nots? The American people have adopted some socialist-

> > like

> > > programs into law (progressive taxes, welfare) to give people

> > > entitlement " rights " and have had mixed results. The more

wealth

> > gets

> > > redistributed, the less people have/take responsibility over

their

> > > personal behavior. It's why totalitarian socialism (communism

and

> > > fascism) have failed everywhere it's been tried. When you try

to

> > > eliminate the capitalists " middlemen " , you kill the golden

goose of

> > > individual incentive and innovation.

> > >

> > > The fire in the belly of the American wealth machine is

> > individualism,

> > > not socialist mandates. But I do see some socialist programs

> > > necessary, like taking out insurance, to take the rough edges

off

> > the

> > > sharp turns and jabs of a free market economy. But I think

> > > single-payer health care is too deep and wide a plunge into

> > government

> > > control over our lives, literally.

> > >

> > > Lenny

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Knock, knock. Hello. We have that now in our current system, except,

it's the govt, insurance co, HMO, etc. deciding what is paid for.

It's not just the cosmetic stuff (breast implants, botox, etc.) or

the " extras " (lasik, gastric bypass, supplements, ABA) that aren't

being covered.

I know my kid is excluded from certain services just for having ASD and

some companies won't pay a penny toward one of our kids at all!

p.s. I know, some things on the above lists are covered by some payers

for some patients under certain conditions.

>

> ...In a single payer system who will have the ultimate power and say

on which treatments are covered and what dollar amounts? The answer is

government...Mike

[Guest guest]

At least we have some choice in insurance companies and treatment!!! i.e. Blue

Cross Blue

Shield PPO covers Great Plains Labs in 49 states. Tri-care for military families

seems to

cover a lot of esoteric labs and treatments that other insurance denies. People

such as Dr.

Buie and Stoller accept insurance and specialize in the medical treatment of

ASD's. Some

insurance and doctors are better than others, but, the key is that choice to the

consumer

remains at the forefront. One government controlled system will lead to

rationing, stifle

innovation and effective treatments and devastate our economy.

Advocacy and systems change the answers to your woes about your child. It is

very hard

work. It takes planning, persistance, and great personal sacrifice. Those

companies are

likely engaged in discrimination practices. You are responsible, what are you

going to do

about it? The same discrimination you describe was changed through legislation

in NY.

Democracy is not easy or free. I hope you have called or met with at least 20

legislators

about the discrimination and civil rights violations you have encountered. I

hope you will

ask them to sponsor autism insurance parity legislation.

Give them the NY language and find a sponsor in the majority party in your state

house/

assembly and state senate. The NY bill number was A699 and S784. Google this

and start

the process of ending this discrimination by planning for true " systems change "

to benefit

these kids and families.

Mike

> >

> > ...In a single payer system who will have the ultimate power and say

> on which treatments are covered and what dollar amounts? The answer is

> government...Mike

>

[Guest guest]

There have been numerous occasions when my HMO has denied medical treatments

that could benefit my boy because in their myopic view of budget conservation

anything thing that occurs with my boy is a direct manifestation of his having

autism, and thereby excluded from coverage per contract.

I will appologize to any one this list who may be in the industry, but it is my

sincere hope that they keep Hell hot for the bastards who run my HMO.

Re: Socialism and Medicine

Posted by: " thefitzenreiterfamily " thefitzenreiterfamily@...

thefitzenreiterfamily

Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:45 pm (PST)

Knock, knock. Hello. We have that now in our current system, except,

it's the govt, insurance co, HMO, etc. deciding what is paid for.

It's not just the cosmetic stuff (breast implants, botox, etc.) or

the " extras " (lasik, gastric bypass, supplements, ABA) that aren't

being covered.

I know my kid is excluded from certain services just for having ASD and

some companies won't pay a penny toward one of our kids at all!

p.s. I know, some things on the above lists are covered by some payers

for some patients under certain conditions.

[Guest guest]

Also wrong, depending on where you work

This will be my last response as you will never understand the concept and you

are

boring me.

CGF

> > >

> > > ...In a single payer system who will have the ultimate power and say

> > on which treatments are covered and what dollar amounts? The answer is

> > government...Mike

> >

>