Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
To be 100% honest I personally think health care should be universal and a right of citizenship from a moral perspective, which is why I was disappointed in the passed bill. I think there should either be a universal payroll tax, or a national sales tax on non vital items to cover it. People can whine and gripe, about paying for deadbeats all they want but at the end of the day it just plain not right for the haves to be able to live healthily and the have-nots to suffer on account of something that may not even be there fault. Not every poor person is a lazy druq addict you know. People say look at Britain or Canada, or anywhere else, however my aunt had terminal pancreatic cancer two years ago in Canada, and I have to say from all reports her care was beyond excellent. Also my GF moved here from Germany, and almost had a heart attack the first time she used her insurance from Vanderbilt which costs more, and covers less. It can be done, and just like we use social security to make sure old people do not die in the gutter we need a plan to keep people healthy.
have nots, who are have nots do to no fault of their own, IE those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, those who have reached retirement age, etc, have every right to affordable healthcare. Not free healthcare, but affordable healthcare.
And while I hate bloated bureaucracies in the federal government, this is one thing I certainly could stand for, from a citizens point of view, provided that there is some sort of policing to prevent the able bodied and able minded lazy people from taking advantage of the system.
However, from a providers point of view, i think the idea is BS, because it would standardize the providers payscale. In this system, you have 3 options, you can accept what the government is willing to pay for the services you rendered. you can convert to a cash only clinic; and not recgonize this government insurance at all (and wave bye bye to 95% of your clients), or you can find a new line of work.
All in all, I think it would be unfair for the government to circumvent capitalism in the healthcare field. Considering how hard they have to work to get that MD or Ph D, and how critical people tend to be towards them (malpractice lawsuits), I think they deserve the right to charge what they feel is a fair price.
Sure. Very broadly speaking socialism is about common public ownership and management. Those medical coverage programs are owned and run by the gubmint. I'm not saying that they "are" socialist, just that they could be described that way, much more accurately so than regulation of capitalist private insurance companies.
I questioned mainly because you threw the VA in there. I have found - because I work at the VA - that most people do not truly understand how the VA works at all. We have certain veterans that are 100% service connected for specific things - that means if they are being treated for knee pain and they are 100% service connected due to an injury suffered to their knees while in the military - they do not pay for that treatment. However, if that is what they are service connected for and they go to the VA to see the doctor because they have the flu or have arm pain - if they have health insurance - it gets filed through their health insurance and they pay their health insurance deductible. If they have no health insurance, then they are normally required to have a "means test" to see what they are able to pay of their bills and are billed accordingly.
The VA is not free government provided care across the board.
If you suffer an injury while you are active duty and can prove that the injury was incurred while you were on active duty - they you will get a service connected rating for that - it might only be 20% - meaning you would be responsible for 80% of the bill for that treatment - whether it is paid by your private health insurance or by you from income that you earn or received from SSA or disability benefits.
It's pretty far from socialized medicine. You are not told which doc you HAVE to see - if you don't like the clinic you are assigned to - you request and change and they change you to a different clinic with different doctors. Most VA's have a limited number of specialists on hand and actually outsource lots of stuff to private facilities. Those private facilities then bill the VA according to the contract they have in place, the VA pays them and then the VA bills the veteran or the veterans insurance as explained above.
The VA is not free government provided care across the board. ...
It's pretty far from socialized medicine. You are not told which doc you HAVE to see - if you don't like the clinic you are assigned to - you request and change and they change you to a different clinic with different doctors.
Right, socialism doesn't mean it's free. Most of the countries with socialized medicine don't tell people which doctor they have to see, either (my private HMO, otoh, does tell me which doctors I can go to).
The VA is a actually a pretty common local model that proponents of socialized medicine point to, as is Medicare, for this reason:
Most VA's have a limited number of specialists on hand and actually outsource lots of stuff to private facilities. Those private facilities then bill the VA according to the contract they have in place, the VA pays them and then the VA bills the veteran or the veterans insurance as explained above.
That's a description of how single-payer would work (lots of providers, but only a single payer: a gov't entity like the VA).
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Dec 1, 2010 0:18:54 GMT -5
Like it or not, we currently pay, and will continue to pay, for medical treatment for the un/underinsured. In 1986 EMTALA was passed, requiring that any dedicated emergency department provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to ANYONE and everyone who walks through the door. Emergency dept services cost approx. three times that of outpatient services, and about 20% of those visiting most EDs are uninsured who either 1) are experiencing an unexpected emergency 2) are forced to use the ED as their outpt clinic for acute illnesses or 3) have been unable to obtain outpatient services to manage their chronic illnesses due to their lack of insurance and their illnesses have become acute enough to require immediate, emergent care. Hospitals MUST care for and admit these patients. YOU pay for this in the end, through programs provided by the federal government and states to curb costs to hospitals paid for by YOUR TAXES, or by paying an inflated rate for YOUR services at the hospital to buffer their loss. 80% of these visits could have been handled on an outpatient visit had the person had access to such services. Can you imagine the cost reduction?! We can provide an uninsured person with high blood pressure with a doctors visit once a year ($125.00) and medication (older, yet effective antihypertensives cost mere dollars a month). Or we can NOT provide it and wait until that person has a heart attack, stroke or complete kidney failure, at which point they are eligible for medicaid and disability to pay for their nursing home care, extended hospitalization, lifetime of dialysis, home health care, social security disability etc etc etc etc. A few hundred dollars a year of prevention to save hundreds of thousands of dollars for a lifetime of continued care? Seems a no brainer to me.
Universal health care would provide these much needed services and a reduced cost. As with any insurance, the larger the pool, the smaller the cost per individual.
There may indeed be a reduction in the pay scale for providers (myself included). There are so many bricks in the wall that need to be fixed along with the healthcare system, the cost of medical training included.
Our current system is not working NOW, and how can a broken, malfunctioning item be fixed without TRYING to repair it, someway, somehow. Healthcare reform is at least a proactive attempt to repair that which is battered.
It may or may not work right away. We will likely have to reevaluate and make adjustments accordingly. This is what intelligent creatures do, trial and error in problem solving. We've had too many decades of error sans the ingenuity and guts of TRIAL.
Fortunately for us, we've evolved beyond the basic survival mechanisms that other animals are able to adhere to. At some point pesky empathy and compassion came into play, making it difficult for us to abandon our fellow humans to survival of the fittest. Yet we continually fail to live as true communities. I believe this is the root of many of our current social ills. We've left others, primarily our children and the underprivileged, behind in the dust.
It is heart-breaking to to watch people come into the hospital and hear their tales of being forgotten by humanity. Recently a woman with brain cancer was in the ER mourning her deceased husband. Her insurance dropped her in the middle of her chemo treatments. They had to foreclose on their home as they were using their mortgage money to pay mounting medical bills to save her life. Her 56 year old husband picked up a second, part time job as a laborer to try to make ends meet. He died of a heart attack on the job sight, leaving her with NOTHING, NO ONE. This cannot continue to happen. What kind of humans are we if we let it?
"Points to ponder", by an inner-city nurse/social worker.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
The problem is, if you start lowering the rates that doctors are "allowed" to charge, and you lower the cost for medical training, you will inevitably lower the quality of health care.
The problem is, if you start lowering the rates that doctors are "allowed" to charge, and you lower the cost for medical training, you will inevitably lower the quality of health care.
That has not proven true in any other country that has done it, look up the statistics. In most of Europe if you can get in to med school it is a free ride, and then you make the equivalent of 200k a year.
The problem is, if you start lowering the rates that doctors are "allowed" to charge, and you lower the cost for medical training, you will inevitably lower the quality of health care.
Medicaid already pays a reduced rate for services, and Medicare pays based on DRG's, meaning they pay a fixed amount per diagnosis, whether a patient is kept for 3 days or 13. Yet the care provided to Medicaid and Medicare recipients is the same, and at times better, than that provided to the masses (I say this because your insurance may not approve an MRI, while a Medicaid recipient will not be denied this service ever).
And as far as the med school costs. The Dr I worked with last night advised me that in 1980 the average cost of med school was 20,000. Today it is over 200,000 (way out pacing standard inflation rates) I can't find a strong source to confirm, but I did find similar figures. This being said, if the cost of an education in medicine was directly related to the quality, then we should, perhaps, not be ranked 37th in the world in quality of healthcare.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
I work next to a guy who was in Vietnam. He has insurance under the VA. He just got an inflatable balloon implanted in his penis because he can't take Viagra due to a heart condition. He says the whole operation was covered by the VA. For some reason that popped into my head when you guys were talking about the VA.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by lordrockinhood on Dec 1, 2010 10:33:57 GMT -5
^^^ One of the best... or at least one of my favorite NYC songs EVER!
I saw mypenis lying on a blanket next to a broken toaster oven. Some guy was selling it. I had to buy it off him. He wanted twenty-two bucks, but I talked him down to seventeen. I took it home, washed it off, and put it back on. I was happy again. Complete. ;D
America's heathcare system is rated so low for 2 reasons. 1, the number of uninsured (was near 17%). 2, the cost of healthcare in the united states (just a part of capitalism)
America pioneers more medical treatments then the rest of the world combined (and its not even close). American's receive 50% more organ transplants than Europeans (adjusted for difference in population), and a much greater percentage in the rest of the world. American's also have the highest survival rate for cancer in the world. American Women's survival rate for cancer approx 63%, European Women's is only 56%. While American Men's rate is 66%, and European Men's rate is only 47%.
Sure, by some people's ratings, america a horrible healthcare system, and we are behind 36 other countries, but honestly, i would refuse to get treatment for anything, even a sore throat in most of those countries.
America's heathcare system is rated so low for 2 reasons. 1, the number of uninsured (was near 17%). 2, the cost of healthcare in the united states (just a part of capitalism)
America pioneers more medical treatments then the rest of the world combined (and its not even close). American's receive 50% more organ transplants than Europeans (adjusted for difference in population), and a much greater percentage in the rest of the world. American's also have the highest survival rate for cancer in the world. American Women's survival rate for cancer approx 63%, European Women's is only 56%. While American Men's rate is 66%, and European Men's rate is only 47%.
Sure, by some people's ratings, america a horrible healthcare system, and we are behind 36 other countries, but honestly, i would refuse to get treatment for anything, even a sore throat in most of those countries.
I wonder what the cancer survival rate for the 17% uninsured is? Also we are number one in some areas, number 2 in several others, and canadas rate is comparable to ours within a couple of % points. Also while America has pioneered technological advances, surgical advances come from all over all the time, remember the French and the face transplant.
I am not sure where your organ donor numbers came from, from looking it up there is not a clear answer, but there is nowhere near the kind of per capita disparity you just mentioned, for instance germany has the same rate of per capita heart transplants as the us. Europe as a whole maybe Western Europe not a chance.
As a side note to the technological advancements, remember most did not come from our medical program but from for profit companies that sell world wide they do not really have anything to do with our healthcare system.
Last Edit: Dec 1, 2010 15:03:54 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Obviously wiki isn't the best source, but I can't find the source that I found when I researched 2 months ago.
Those numbers are based on "per million population"
Europe is not a country it is a continent, if you take the individual westernized countries the demographic is very different. Bulgaria does not have the same level of care you get in England, France or Germany which also have socialized medicine. It also leaves out Canada which has pretty much the same per capita rate as the US.
Well, it does leave out canada, but if I recall correctly, canada was slightly behind (3 or 4?) per million.
As far as the country / continent thing, I figured it would be similar to the states in america. Some states have far better medicaid based benefits, more hospitals equipt to preform organ transplants, etc
anyways, its a tough issue to argue one way or the other.
Well, it does leave out canada, but if I recall correctly, canada was slightly behind (3 or 4?) per million.
As far as the country / continent thing, I figured it would be similar to the states in america. Some states have far better medicaid based benefits, more hospitals equipt to preform organ transplants, etc
anyways, its a tough issue to argue one way or the other.
That is not really how Europe works it would be like lumping our transplant rate into Mexico's. It is hard to figure out, and we certainly have two very opposite views of it. That does not mean we can not argue without rancor or anger about it though.
thought it was about time to bring this thread back
America spoke back in Nov (remember the shellacking?). A right-wing governor was voted into office in Madison, WI, and now is proposing something that left-wingers don't like. And what do the Dems do...run and cry because it's not what they like or want. Keep in mind, the people spoke in Nov!!! Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Why not fire all those who are calling into work, and hire those that want to work...I'm sure they won't mind if they aren't part of a union, as long as they're working.
Hey jigawig. Ready for some heated discussions? Please be aware that there is no anger in my posts. Due to the inherent nature of forums such as this, there is often a tendency to interpret an acrimonious air to impassioned comments. While I am always passionate, I rarely get angry. And never on a messageboard.
Yes, Democrats ran away, just like Lincoln did from the IL Senate in 1840, actually jumping out a window to stall the vote. This is a legislative procedure no less valid than a Senate fillibuster (the type where a Senator has to actually talk indefinitely.) Both sides have done this and will again in the future. Being pompous about the other sides use does nor change that.
This is nothing more than a nationally orchestrated Republican strategy to destroy the single remaining Democratic big money donor (Unions). If this was truly about the budget, Gov. Walker would have accepted the unions offer to help balance the budget through reduced salary, pensions. etc. and put EVERYTHING on the table for negotiation except their right to exist (collective bargaining. ) A union with no collective bargaining is no union at all. That is the whole point of this Republican ploy.
And the lies being spread on FOXNews are just further exposing the falsehood of this. They say WI teachers make $100k/year (2/19/11.) The BLS census data says it $46k/yr. Rep senators and FOX stated their fear of the violence of the "protesters" (1/20/11) at the same time that Madison police were commending the demonstrators for the peaceful and orderly manner.
This is all politics. Nothing else.
And I find it hypocritical the conservatives continuously state that they won in November so liberals should get over it and accept the consequences. Have they even for a moment taken their own advise and gotten over the loss they suffered on the Healthcare Bill or rebuffed the legislative maneuvering used by Reps to delay and obstruct it for months?
Apparently only Tea Partyers and Egyptians are allowed to peacefully demonstrate or legislatively block objectionable bills. Liberals have been reduced to a political subset whose every actions is either ridiculous, repulsive or revolutionary socialism.
Let me also say that I cannot understand some people's hate of and fear of unions. We live in an economic system that is approaching a corporate oligarchy. Corporations get preferential treatment in all areas being allowed to create PO Box headquarters to avoid taxes, getting taxpayer bail-outs after "stealing" from their shareholders and getting giant taxpayer subsidies while making insane profits. This is not surprising as they have purchased our government and courts. And the new unlimited and secret contribution law will only make this worse.
Why would any working man not want to have some power in the otherwise powerless position we have in the employee-employer relationship. Conservatives will tell you that your power lies in the power to quit. But when quitting often entails bankruptcy, homelessness , hunger and loss of medical care for yourself and your family, is that really a viable option? Have we not seen what becomes of powerless worker? The Gilded Age shows us that left unrestrained corporations will install 70 hour work weeks, no benefits, child labor and unsafe work conditions to name a few things. And many conservatives say these would and should be legal or, at least, left up to the states to decide. Do we really want a race to the bottom between the state to see who can attract more jobs by treating their citizens the worst?
Unions are human organizations and can be corrupted. But do we throw out our democracy because there is occasional corruption? Do we throw out free elections because there is abuse? No! Nor should we eliminate the sole source of power the working man has due to a few bad apples. Just as we have advocates for both sides in the court, so should we have advocates for both in the workplace. Otherwise only one side is represented and justice can never prevail.
holy shiz, i could not imagine making 100K a year teaching! that is nuts. and anyone who believes that most teachers make that is crazy to begin with.
texas has a no strike law and teachers here are not allowed to collectively bargain (you can loose your job, your certification and your TRS fund). i can only imagine if we could strike, you would be seeing something like what is going on in WI happening here b/c of all the state mandated budget cuts for the next year.
Speaking of TX, they are one of only 5 states that have made collective bargaining for teachers illegal. Anecdotally, the ranking of those 5 states regarding ACT/SAT scores are
South Carolina - 50th, North Carolina - 49th, Georgia - 48th Texas - 47th Virginia - 44th.
Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd
America spoke back in Nov (remember the shellacking?). A right-wing governor was voted into office in Madison, WI, and now is proposing something that left-wingers don't like.
Don't you dare be telling me what's going on up in the 608. I'm going to declare myself the resident expert on Madison, Wisconsin here. I've only been up to the capitol every day since Wednesday, and even then I was kind of late to the party.
This is way more than something just the "left-wingers don't like." True, this does have the left-wingers upset... but they certainly aren't alone. This has a lot of regular, usually-don't-give-a-damn people up in arms as well.
Here's how I can guarantee you that this is something more than just what has pissed off the left: Let's assume that the Iraq invasion had leftists more angry and united than ever. After all, the global protests against Bush's decision were only the biggest organized protests in history. In early 2003, all the pissed-off liberals got together to protest the Iraq war...
Wednesday, I found myself turning to my friend and asking whether this or the Iraq protest crowd (at the same place, no less) was bigger. We both figured it was about the same size. That day's crowd estimate was around 30,000. At their absolute peak thus far, Saturday afternoon, the crowd in and around the capitol (2x2 city blocks) was estimated at around 70,000.
All the pissed-off liberals = 30,000 Peak Walker protest = 70,000
I'm sorry, but this is not just the angry left wing... this is TWICE what happens when you have the entire left up in arms over something.
The Tea Party bussed in people from twelve other cities in the state on Saturday, hosting a Walker support rally with Andrew Breitbart and Joe the Plumber. Their estimated share of the crowd estimate was five thousand, out of 70,000. The capital square occupies 2x2 city blocks and there was a corner cordoned off for their counter-rally... there was an entire unused section of lawn reserved for Tea Party people who were expected but didn't show
And what do the Dems do...run and cry because it's not what they like or want. Keep in mind, the people spoke in Nov!!! Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Procedural shenanigans bullshit was afoot. There is such a thing as minority rights in a democracy, and in this case they were trampled upon. Walker intended on introducing and passing his bill within a very brief timeframe and with no period for comment. The manner in which the Wisconsin State Assembly passed this bill disturbs me.
Majority Republicans informed Democrats there would be a session to debate Walker's proposed budget repair bill at 5:00pm on Friday. The Assembly, which had a quorum of members to do business without Democrats, met and completed a vote on Walker's bill as proposed... by 4:57pm. Democrats were in caucus and informed of the premature vote, only to arrive before the scheduled 5:00pm start of proceedings as the vote was wrapping up. At no point were Democrats allowed to discuss the bill, introduce amendments, or even vote on the bill. That particular Assembly session had completed its business three minutes before it had told their counterparts that proceedings would even begin.
State Rep. Gordon Hintz has had the biggest floor speech of this whole debacle, stating his case here. "If you want to jam through a bill, you've got to sit through the messy process that is democracy."
It is not just the content of the bill, it is the manner in which it was passed in the Assembly which is reprehensible. The way the Assembly went about it showed absolute disregard towards their colleagues, procedural rules, and general fair play. In a democracy, the losing side at least gets to state their case before being decided against. This did not happen in Wisconsin on Friday.
All other aspects aside, I can't blame the state senators for walking out as they did after the manner in which the Assembly passed this bill. That is not how represented officials should treat their counterparts in a democratically elected legislature.
Why not fire all those who are calling into work, and hire those that want to work...I'm sure they won't mind if they aren't part of a union, as long as they're working.
Do you really mean to suggest that simultaneously firing all the state-employed teachers, police, firefighters, doctors and the like during an uprising like this would be a GOOD thing? No wonder Walker's on such a hot seat, if this is any indication of what you righties think constitutes good governance. The last public sector workers' union, the State Patrol, withdrew their support from Scott Walker today. How would Walker maintain an orderly society when the cops and firefighters are in opposition?
Tom Morello played in Madison today. Between songs during his set, he told a story about his experience at the state capitol last night. The police union brought bratwursts and beverages in to protesters sleeping in the capitol, and he said it was the "first time at any protest where I bro'ed around with the cops."
Which kind of comes full circle to the original point I was making. What's been going on here in Wisconsin isn't just your typical protest. There's no cops vs. protesters mentality; the police ARE protesters here. I said at the beginning of this post that early on, this protest equaled the biggest protest I'd ever seen... and it's grown to the size of (to use a reference we all get) a What Stage headliner audience since. This protest has been going longer and stronger than anything I would've imagined. One more very important reason The Battle of Madison is atypical of what I know from previous political protests: it might actually accomplish its goal.
thought it was about time to bring this thread back
America spoke back in Nov (remember the shellacking?). A right-wing governor was voted into office in Madison, WI, and now is proposing something that left-wingers don't like. And what do the Dems do...run and cry because it's not what they like or want. Keep in mind, the people spoke in Nov!!! Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Why not fire all those who are calling into work, and hire those that want to work...I'm sure they won't mind if they aren't part of a union, as long as they're working.
The people are sure speaking now. I love how the right wing can talk about the rights of the people when the teahdists are protesting on corporate money. However, when real grass roots activism comes into play they dismiss them as cowards, and bullies. Whatever happens in Wisconsin now is going to hurt the GOP a lot more than the Democrats. This is the advantage of not being in power which has been exploited for two years now by the right.
This is nothing but a attack on a power base of progressives, if it was really about money they would at least talk about taking an offer. I can not wait until they try it in TN, although our governor seems a little less hardcore than the Koch bos. puppet Walker. If you pay attention you can see their lips move when he talks.
Post by Longtime and Frequent Poster on Feb 22, 2011 13:39:07 GMT -5
I just want to say it's awesome to see people out of Wisconsin who are extremely knowledgeable of what's going on (except for jigawig of course.) It's definitely strange to have your state headlining national news when you live here.
Also, Troo, I hope you run for elected office some day.
I just want to say it's awesome to see people out of Wisconsin who are extremely knowledgeable of what's going on (except for jigawig of course.) It's definitely strange to have your state headlining national news when you live here.
Just to clarify, Jigawig isn't a Badger. She hails from Texas. Though she could easily pass for roughly 40% of Wisconsin's electorate