Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Sign our petition at www.healthtransformation.net

It's worth a look see guys.

that site touts Newt Gingrich the criminal as a health care specialist, and also uses very slanted and misleading headlines like "Poll Shows Most Americans Oppose Government-Run Healthcare Bill " which is just NOT TRUE.

Most americans know subsidized (libraries, schools, etc..) services are almost always less expensive than 'for-profit' service. Most americans want CHOICE.

Why is the private health care industry afraid to compete with the government?? Simple, it's not the doctors, it's the insurance companies.. they profit off your monthly premiums. They get more profit if you use less services. The bottom line is profit, and least amount of services.

I'm going through this first hand right now (not the case I discussed in the other thread)... I'm in need of specialist services and surgery, and it's taking forever, and TONS of visits with $40 co-pays each just to get jerked around, because the system is designed to force the doctors and specialists to dick you (me) for as much in co-pays as possible, and to not CURE the problem, but to MANAGE it, for as LONG AS HUMANLY possible..

it's enough to make a person lose hope in humanity.. seriously.. we actually develop drugs to manage sickness rather than to cure it.

We are SICK, but nothing can cure GREED.

Kramerguy wrote:that site touts Newt Gingrich the criminal as a health care specialist,

If he's associated with it, I won't bother.

Kramerguy wrote:Why is the private health care industry afraid to compete with the government?? Simple, it's not the doctors, it's the insurance companies.. they profit off your monthly premiums. They get more profit if you use less services. The bottom line is profit, and least amount of services.

Not so simple. A private business cannot compete with a government that can print it's own money. If you own a business, and have to spend your own money on marketing and supplies, you are not going to be able to compete against a competitor (the government) who can stipulate that it's products must be purchased through them and can set lower rates simply because it can at the outset.

When such a monopoly exists, the free-market has to retreat to other professions, and you lose diversity in products. Moreover, government institutions by their very nature are centralized and have to rely on red-tape in order to make decisions. Personal care eventually becomes a system of general population statistics - you become a number, not an individual in the eyes of the provider. Visit your local DMV and ask them for a special plan, or special consideration on your smog certificate. They don't know you from Joe Schmoe - all they see is the form you hand them and whether it's filled out to their satisfaction.

You may have a doctor who happens to like you and cares for you personally, but what he can legally do will be limited by the red-tape involved in processing your case.

Iron Maiden said it quite nicely, "I'm not a number, I'm a free man...". Under socialism, you ARE a number.

I'm sorry for your situation. No one likes the current prices - but don't blame private industry for high prices - blame all of the intrusive government red-tape and broad sweeping regulations already imposed on the industry - that's what needs to change.

And while I'm venting... lower taxes so you can actually keep your hard earned money. Imagine that - I would love to be more charitable - be able to choose who / what organization I give my money to, but the government has already taken my hard-earned dollar and given it to institutions that I am morally opposed to - and the amount of red-tape in order to get that money to where it's supposed to go to, gets chewed up leaving only a percentage of it actually going where it needs to get to. There's no personal-love displayed when one man holds a gun to my head and says give that man a dollar. I certainly didn't give of my own volition - I was forced to give, so I have no satisfaction for helping my neighbor.

rant over.
Chris

I see the fraud and out right theft commited by the health care systems up close and personal on a daily basis.
The only reform that can help our system is to police and eliminate fraud and abuse in the present system, not nationalising the fraud so the government steals from us with no recourse.

A short true story if you will.

An elderly patient due to a disease process can no longer swallow without asperating. He and the family choose the placement of a gastric tube so that he can be feed enteraly.
The doctor orders brand x enteral supplement. The nurse orders a case and begins the feeding process.
The next day, the Dietician determines that brand x is not the most benefical and the Dr orders brand Y . The nurse orders brand Y and attempts to return the 20 cans of brand x for credit to the patients account. The nurse is told that the supply department no longer accepts returns nor will they credit the patients account anything once charged to him. What do I do with the brand X the nurse askes? Knowing it would be illegal to use it for the patient. We are supposed to keep it on the unit untill we can charge it to someone else the nurse is told. So the hospital charges medicare for the same 20 cans again and again?

Multiply that by thousands of supplies daily. By thousands of hospitals daily. And you have the result of nationalised healthcare.

Here's some things to consider:

1) The democrats right now have the bully pulpit. Now is the time that some form of national healthcare WILL be passed. Like it or not, it is coming.

2) Nothing is ever written in stone. If it proves to be an untenable plan it could be changed or scrapped later on when the Republicans or some other party gains a majority in our government.

3) Our healthcare system NOW is a MESS. I'm almost of the opinion that ANY plan implemented will shake up the current system. If the healthcare plan competes with the private sector (and that sounds like it might happen) then I say good. A national system SEPARATE from the private system could end up being a very good thing introducing much more competition. Don't be afraid of a separate governemnt run healthcare system. You can NOW go to UPS, Fedex, DHL or the United States Post Office to ship a package. I'm all for increased competition.

4) I'm very afraid that there will be absolutely no significant reduction in costs without major tort reform. Obama is NOT in favor of tort reform. BIB BIG MISTAKE. When doctors are paying over half their salaries in medical liability insurance then you don't have to be an idiot to see that major tort reform is desperately needed to reduce costs.

5) Right now there's no winning any arguments for or against national healthcare. We won't know for quite some time the exact plan that WILL be passed and it will take years for it to be fully implemented. Just as the massive stimulus package is going to take time to be fully implemented. Americans want instant results. We tend to be very impatient. You can't blame anybody who is unemployed and is impatient. But we're all going to have to be patient.

6) Recently I've had a number of health insurance telemarketing calls. I think you're going to see dynamic changes in our health insurance companies BEFORE any legislation is passed. There are signs that the insurance industry is going to make a preemptive strike to sway the American public opinion away from national healthcare. Just the threat of reform is going to bring some changes.

In general buckle up your seatbelts. This next few months is going to be quite interesting in Washington D.C.

I thought of a good bumper sticker: Hope Things Change (I don't think Obama supporters would like that one).

Chris4Blues wrote:
Not so simple. A private business cannot compete with a government that can print it's own money.

Private schools have competed with public schools successfully for decades, until recently.

Chris4Blues wrote:- but don't blame private industry for high prices - blame all of the intrusive government red-tape and broad sweeping regulations already imposed on the industry - that's what needs to change.

But I do blame "the industry", specifically the insurance companies. When they were heavily regulated, they acted as they should. Do you recall the healthcare crisis of 1986? Or how about 1978? How is it that the medical community was able to co-exist, and GROW & THRIVE with patients and insurance then, but not now?

Well, for starters, fiscal 2007, BCBS of PA, and ONLY the PA division, made $4 BILLION in PROFITS, not gross, but NET profits, yet.. my rates nearly doubled the following year, and my copays did actually double. It just happened again this year. My co-pay to see a doctor is $40 but I'm paying over $300 / month for coverage, wth??? I can't afford it and have decided to drop all coverage once the outcome of my surgery is resolved. If we get sick and have to go to the ER, well.. f**k.. we go bankrupt. I cannot afford both healthcare and my rent/groceries/utilities.

Meanwhile, BCBS, which is now Keystone, own the insurance monopoly here and cry poor all the way to the bank. The deregulation (just like the banking industry) has allowed the facists to screw us, again.

I honestly don't believe there is a solution, especially when our politicians are paid by ins. lobbyists to let the insurance companies write their own reform legislation. Look how well that worked on wall st....

Yeah, remember how auto insurance skyrocketed when it became mandatory? Anytime you HAVE to have something, it's gonna get pricey.

Protection rackets are always costly.

Kramerguy wrote:I honestly don't believe there is a solution, especially when our politicians are paid by ins. lobbyists to let the insurance companies write their own reform legislation. Look how well that worked on wall st....

I share much of your pessimism I don't see any short-term solutions that's for sure, but only because government has become so intertwined in business and private life when in my opinion, it should have let people conduct their business and punish criminal activity, build roads and defend the country. Enforcing laws to "prevent" crime is a pandoras box, and will result in a camera in every bedroom.

Ever try to start a business? Just maintaining one with all the regulations is incredibly burdensome. My wife own her own photography studio and every year she has to fill out an inventory form so they can tax her "net-worth"...

chris

On a side note - the notion of Health Insurance is actually based on a good principle - not a principle of greed or personal guarantee, but one of ensuring that doctors and patients are mutually cared for.

Consider a small business community in the sticks. It would be nice to have a doctor on hand, but who can afford to pay a doctor's annual salary to live there just to tend to a small community? What happens when no one gets sick? Does the doctor go broke?

The solution was for the "community" with a need, agreeing on paying a doctor's annual salary to stay in that community. Everyone benefitted by virtue of agreement.

Now imagine the agreement turns into a requirement with punitive damanges enforced by law? Now the doctor can say you are required by law to have me here, and I charge this much...

In general, that's the problem with mandates. They make business the determiner of how much and when you pay them, instead of the opposite.

Chris

Kramerguy wrote:

Chris4Blues wrote:
Not so simple. A private business cannot compete with a government that can print it's own money.

Private schools have competed with public schools successfully for decades, until recently.

I went to public school, but my kids go private school. I placed them in private school not because of market prices, but because of a personal moral obligation I hold towards my kids. I know that the public school tends to the lowest common denominator, and it also imposes morals that in principle I disagree with and don't want my children to be taught. I'm not alone in this - those who have similar conviction will send their kids to private school, or homeschool regardless, so I wouldn't equate school with business. It's not competing fiscally, it's competing with regard to quality. However, as is the case with most government ideologies, competition is a threat and there are legislations that are attempting to ban home-schooling and regulate private schools.

So I wouldn't view private schools as competition in the same sense as business. There's more of a moral necessity that drives its existence than fiscal.

Chris

Chris4Blues wrote:

Kramerguy wrote:

Chris4Blues wrote:
Not so simple. A private business cannot compete with a government that can print it's own money.

Private schools have competed with public schools successfully for decades, until recently.

I went to public school, but my kids go private school. I placed them in private school not because of market prices, but because of a personal moral obligation I hold towards my kids. I know that the public school tends to the lowest common denominator, and it also imposes morals that in principle I disagree with and don't want my children to be taught. I'm not alone in this - those who have similar conviction will send their kids to private school, or homeschool regardless, so I wouldn't equate school with business. It's not competing fiscally, it's competing with regard to quality. However, as is the case with most government ideologies, competition is a threat and there are legislations that are attempting to ban home-schooling and regulate private schools.

So I wouldn't view private schools as competition in the same sense as business. There's more of a moral necessity that drives its existence than fiscal.

Chris

I'm not so sure we disagree here,

My point was that healthcare could be the same -
The govt could provide the minimum for those who cannot provide for themselves, and for those who feel the "moral obligation" and also have the financial means to buy a better policy should be able to do exactly that.

It certainly would force the private insurance companies into providing a valuable service vs. the "you take it up the bum, and you better like it" attitude they have towards us today.

I think any time a private industry has that attitude towards it's own 'customers' that it might be time to re-evaluate the regulations and monopoly laws surrounding it - cough*cough*cable*car ins.*food*farming*utilities*gas*cough*hack.. so much more..

it's depressing

Chris4Blues wrote:
In general, that's the problem with mandates. They make business the determiner of how much and when you pay them, instead of the opposite.

Chris

I see the problem as corporate - in the sense that stockholders are legally entitled to maximum profits. The CEO has a legal obligation to provide that, above and in spite of any moral obligations that may conflict. The profit legally wins every time.

So when you are in a business that provides care, compassion, and support, and you add those legal requirements to it, what do you end up with? Well, it's what we got today.

Now what do you get when you factor in these same CEO's and stockholders having congress in their pockets, writing the law as the corporation(s) see fit?

Well, that's what we get when congress passes the "reform".

The fly in the ointment for me is the government cannot provide anything.
They do not create wealth, therefore they cannot provide a product.
What they do is take my money that I need for my family's healthcare and give a very small percentage of it to someone else while helping themselves to the lions share of the money.
Many many businesses are supported by and many many business owners own mansions on the lake, all paid for by the tax dollars of the working poor. It's called Medicare. This is a part of the problem.
More of it cannot be the solution.
If the government must be involved, let them serve as investigators and regulators. That is their function. Not providers / payor source.
Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still robbery.
And consider this, in the globalist veiw WE ( all Americans ) are the rich.