http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Retired-co...75&ccode=mp

$250K for healthcare.

WTH? Crap, I thought that I was going to get free health care and enough social security to keep me fishing anywhere in the world! Ain't I living in the land of milk and honey?

It's something versus the Do Nothing Party Of No.

That study outlines the reason why we need health care reform, not a reason to not have it...

Fish on...

Todd

Obviously health care is going to get extremely expensive for those who intend to live forever. Science keeps increasing the number of conditions that can be treated, but at increasingly higher incremental costs. There is no way around that. I read a while back that around 90% of a person's total lifetime health care expenses occur during their final 6 months of life. Just die 6 months earlier and save a bundle. The "Death Panels" will be assuming this role in place of the insurance companies. But the end result is the same. Ain't none of us getting out of here alive.

Sg

Couldn't agree with your statement more Todd. Only gov't subsidized monopolies will do nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare, in fact it will have the exact opposite effect. Low reimbursment rates for Medicare and Medicaid add significant costs to the delivery of healthcare in this country, for all users.

Introducing gov't provided health insurance as "competition" to the marketplace is the complete antithesis of competition in the marketplace. Sure they may offer a lower premium but will not reimburse dollar for dollar. They will then institute price controls to control costs, reducing quality. That is not competition, that is central planning. Central planning models are proven failures the world over.

Real competition would be allowing insurance pools to sell policies across state lines. Want to really cut into the profits of insurance companies and piss them off? Then take away their gov't protected state monopolies.

That's what ya get for thinkin' Alan...




+1

Unfortunately the "aholes making a fortune" own too many of the politicos...

Yet another reason to have publicly funded campaigns.

Fish on...

Todd

Yet another reason to have publicly funded campaigns.

Fish on...

Todd



+1000

That would do more to get the B.S. out of politics than anything. No more calling for donations and no more "I gave you $ so vote the way I want you too". All public funding and only public funding.....no opting out either.

Or do it one better and nationalize ar at least tightly regulate industries key to our national safety & infrastructure like the ones in the energy, transportation, and defense sectors.

Lots to agree with here... I find it absolutely fascinating how difficult it is for people to talk objectively about the "cost of saving a life" issue, which ultimately must be discussed and understood for real cost savings to happen.

You have people who are sick, and they and their loved ones will want every option exhausted. This includes not just medicines and procedurs, but batteries of expensive tests. The 4 doctors in my family (all red-state, anti-"obamacare") universally rail on about how much $$$ they are "required" to spend stretching out the last few months of peoples lives.

I, for one, think that "death panels" and "rationing" are a good idea (obviously minus the pejorative name). So is end-of-life counseling. To demonize these things is to perpetuate our current path of exploding costs.

Bingo!!!

My only worry is that now with no compitition our health care standards will stagnant.

Right, because nationalizing those industries will SO take care of the corruption problem

I can't believe some of what I'm reading here. I don't even know where to start.

You guys are about to make my head explode.

Sure would have liked to see health care providers regulated at some point, I am guessing the $40 band aids and unnecessary yet expensive tests will continue?

Well AM at least your post made me laugh.

So explain because I find this interesting and would rather this be a discussion than a pissing match. When you talk about heavy regulation of the health care insurance industry just exactly what do you mean? Price controls? Wage controls? Profit controls? Who does the regulating? The Feds? The states?

The whole publicly financing of elections will have to be addressed another time in another thread.

I also got to agree with Todd on this one. The republicans talk about rationing, but give no solution. What rationing means to me is that that there is a limited supply and someone must decide to how to distribut it out to who needs it most or to ensure that everyone gets an equal supply. If we need rationing and don't have it, doesnt that mean that there are lots of people out there who need it and cannot obtain it?

In maoist theory, in a capitalistic society there will come point where the gap between the rich and poor will be come so great the poor will raise up and take from the rich and distribute to all equally. He felt it was a natural progression. If the republicans are so scared of socialism, maybe they should consider this. The denial of basic needs, such as heath care, is one of those things that can drive a society to socialism. Step over to Machiavellian theory and we can assume the best way to stop this move would be to control access to these basic needs in such a way that the population is sated. The drive to socialized health care is there because of the fact that many Americans cannot afford it. Faced with the prospect of not having any way to care for themselves, they are rising up and demanding that society share the costs and supply evenly. If the republicans want to stop the socialization of medicine, they need find a way to provide it at an affordable cost and in a way that the middle and lower class feel they have access to at least decent care. The prospect of being sent away from a hospital to die while some rich hollywood actress is getting another boob job or face lift is a sure fire way to get the have not's to rise up against the haves.
In some ways we learned this long ago with welfare, minimum wage, work place safety standards and other forms of socialized legislation. If you want to eat your steak safely, don't do it in front of 10 starving people.

Krijack,

That's an interesting perspective that again reminds me of the Oregon Plan that the named state couldn't push through in the early 1990s. That plan provides "decent" care to everyone, and prioritizes around 540 conditions and treatments. Lots of emphasis on preventive treatment because that saves money by avoiding many acute condition treatments. It prioritizes pre-natal, infant and child care because the benefit:cost ratio is high and gives lower priority and treatments to the aged with terminal diseases because the benefits are extremely low to non-existant, and the costs are extraordinarily high. What that means is that when the poor are old and ill, they will receive end of life treatments and painkillers, and they will die relatively soon. The rich, using their private assets, or somewhat affluent and desparate can liquidate their assets and procure extensive treatments and die later, but die just the same.

This allows the rich to eat their steaks safely and in relative harmony.

Sg

As said already in this thread, regulation and tort reform would do wonders. The increased cost of premiums by insurance companies reflects the overcharging by providers that has been happening for years. Just like anything else, if it can be taken advantage of, it will.

Also, no one is denied care and left to die, it just doesn't happen in the US, period. Illegals are not even turned away from premium hospitals when they are having a baby...

Do you believe because you are not paying for this system in the form of premiums you are not going to pay for it? Oh it will be paid for and it will continue to be paid for by the ever shrinking middle class.

What we have learned with welfare is that the myth of people using this to 'work their way up' is a farce, for most, it IS their form of income and until it is cut off they will continue to take it. Just wait to see the lines for doctors notes, disability excuses and prescription meds, once again... if it can be taken advantage of, it will.

minimum wage, work place safety standards and other forms of socialized legislation has directly contributed to the tsunami of imports from countries that do not have these programs. Touting these programs as these wonderful humanistic programs is all good until your shopping cart is full of items made in a dingy factory by people that work for slave wages and have no social protections. Not to say that these things have not helped initially, but the red tape has bound the hands of the American manufactures. Dont call fair compensation in the workplace when your not supporting these programs with your dollar.

Well marz,
If you want to go there, then maybe we should get rid of all social programs, like all reglatory agencies and the police and fire.
The problem, like always, is we regulate only to one level and then stop. No price controls, but limited entry. Regulate our workers, then push free trade. You can't have it that way. We need to decide if we want to live in a regulated society, and if so, make the regulations so that they protect everyone, not just some. I had this same conversation about price contols for Gas. Its a free market they scream. OK then, let me open a refinery in my backyard.

i recently saw Capitalism: A Love Story. all your answers are there.