Is the jig up?

[RangerM]

Providing ins. to the age group least in need, but making them pay the most?

 

Peace and Blessings

 

I think what he is saying is that the Young adults would go from paying nothing (by choice) to paying something, therefore they would see the most increase. Young adults have catastrophe, too.

Edited July 1, 2009 by RangerM

[macattak1]

I think what he is saying is that the Young adults would go from paying nothing (by choice) to paying something, therefore they would see the most increase. Young adults have catastrophe, too.

 

You left out one thing in your numbered list. Have the govt. forgive school loans to those the go GP and stay GP. I personally believe that the #1 reason our ins. is so costly is that everyone is going specialty for another 2 to 3 years instead of going General Practitioner. The last numbers I roughly heard was that we need about 42% GP but we only have about 32% GPs. England had the same challenge I believe and they corrected it by going this route. That should be our first step.

 

Personally, I find this to be very true in that down here at the Mayo clinic the only doctor one can see as a new employee patient or new to the area are residents. We were able to get on with a GP because we knew someone that had a great GP and begged them to take us one. Neither he nor many of his fellow GP's in any of the clinics down here are taking on new patients and that is how its been for years. It is really sad.

 

Get our GP count up and things will be markedly better.

 

---

 

Insurance is one of the things that created this cost monster. A federal system that brings everyone into the system is just going to do more of the same. Right now, its about controlling costs and we have great control over it through our employers, competition, etc. But once it goes Fed it will go from controling costs to maintaining costs and those we will find will be two very different things.

 

Just as older people generally do not need car ins in comparison to younger people, the reverse is true with health insurance. So forcing those young kids into the system is just a huge tax on the ones that can least afford it. Sure, I would want ins at a young age. But not if it is going to exceed some certain cost level. The worst most 18 to 27 year olds have to look forward to is strep throat. They are in the prime of their life. So forcing ins on them does not ring true. (not sure that we are not actually agreeing or what since we are mostly saying the same thing?)

 

Peace and Blessings

[RangerM]

You left out one thing in your numbered list. Have the govt. forgive school loans to those the go GP and stay GP.

Get our GP count up and things will be markedly better.

 

As a State-level initiative (I've altered my post above to reflect this), I would have no problem with this. Here in N.C. we have a program called "Teaching Fellows". Essentially it reimburses the cost of a College Degree in exchange for a 4-year commitment to teach in N.C. public schools. (Note: You are, or used to be, allowed to have preferences in which school you teach in, but not guaranteed where you can get a position. If you don't get a position where you want, and refuse to teach in a small-town, you pay the money back.)

 

So forcing ins on them does not ring true. (not sure that we are not actually agreeing or what since we are mostly saying the same thing?)

 

Peace and Blessings

I corrected myself above, in that no one is forced, given that this is a State-level program. It's only what I would want in North Carolina. If another State wants to completely socialize their medicine, fine by me.

[xr7g428]

The essence of shared risk, which is what insurance is all about, is that a few will get much more than they pay in, a large number will pay in more than they get back. The reason people participate is that they don't know which group they are going to be a part of.

 

The down side of not buying insurance is not a lack of treatment, it is the economic impact of trying to pay for it later. Most people who are struck with catastrophic illness or injury are going to go bankrupt regardless of the medical bills, they go bankrupt because they lose their earning potential. Unless you have disability insurance you may well suffer the same fate even if you have health insurance.

 

The problem with catastrophic health care coverage is that small problems are allowed to turn into big problems. It is cheaper to catch almost any kind of medical problem early. Sadly, for many people, the idea of spending even a few hundred dollars for an office visit will keep them from going. To make the system work you have to get people to go to low cost clinics, not emergency rooms, sooner rather than later. The big money spent on health care is the million dollar heart attack, or the premature birth.

 

One reason that health insurance policies are so expensive is that they have such high limits, most I have seen lately have a life time limit of $3 million. The premium you pay is a function of the potential pay out. There really is no mathematically possible way to offer a giant pay out on a small wager unless you have millions of losers and only a few "winners".

[macattak1]

As a State-level initiative (I've altered my post above to reflect this), I would have no problem with this. Here in N.C. we have a program called "Teaching Fellows". Essentially it reimburses the cost of a College Degree in exchange for a 4-year commitment to teach in N.C. public schools. (Note: You are, or used to be, allowed to have preferences in which school you teach in, but not guaranteed where you can get a position. If you don't get a position where you want, and refuse to teach in a small-town, you pay the money back.)

 

 

I corrected myself above, in that no one is forced, given that this is a State-level program. It's only what I would want in North Carolina. If another State wants to completely socialize their medicine, fine by me.

 

And that is exactly what they should be doing. How come you know this, I know this, probably everyone on BON agree with this, but Congress does not know this?

 

Peace and Blessing

[RangerM]

The down side of not buying insurance is not a lack of treatment, it is the economic impact of trying to pay for it later. Most people who are struck with catastrophic illness or injury are going to go bankrupt regardless of the medical bills, they go bankrupt because they lose their earning potential. Unless you have disability insurance you may well suffer the same fate even if you have health insurance.

At that point, I would ask what is the point of health insurance? Is it "health" insurance or is it "lifestyle" insurance?

The problem with catastrophic health care coverage is that small problems are allowed to turn into big problems. It is cheaper to catch almost any kind of medical problem early. Sadly, for many people, the idea of spending even a few hundred dollars for an office visit will keep them from going. To make the system work you have to get people to go to low cost clinics, not emergency rooms, sooner rather than later. The big money spent on health care is the million dollar heart attack, or the premature birth.

People make choices. Many make bad choices. That isn't likely to change regardless of what system is implemented, unless the system forces people to behave against their will.

 

Speaking for myself, the last two times I went to a doctor (other than an employer-mandated physical/drug test) was at a Minute Clinic. Simple flat fee, and they post their prices online, and they accept many (most?) insurance plans.

 

And that is exactly what they should be doing. How come you know this, I know this, probably everyone on BON agree with this, but Congress does not know this?

Many don't agree with you and me, unfortunately.

Edited July 1, 2009 by RangerM

[RangerM]

However, just looking at the countries mentioned in the article: Canada (81.16), UK (78.85), Germany (79.1), Netherlands (79.25), Norway (79.81), Switzerland (80.74), and Italy (80.07), every last one has a longer average life expectancy than the United States (78.14 - hmmm, looks liked we've slipped to number 47 since last time I looked). Yet, we spend more ($6,096.20) per capita than any of those countries. Only Switzerland and Norway approach 90% of our per capita. The others are all 60% or less. Italy and Canada less than half. So, if the proof is in the pudding, our pudding ain't that great.

 

Maybe you should taste theirs first (Video Link)

[Roadtrip]

Maybe you should taste theirs first (Video Link)

 

Thanks for the link, Ranger.

 

Stossel hinted at it, but failed to point out the fact that America is the only country in the world where "poor people" have an obesity problem. Our society is so wealthy that even the poor among us can and do get fat.

[timmm55]

Bravo Syrtran.

 

Ditto!

Edited July 2, 2009 by timmm55

[Ron W.]

Thanks for the link, Ranger.

 

Stossel hinted at it, but failed to point out the fact that America is the only country in the world where "poor people" have an obesity problem. Our society is so wealthy that even the poor among us can and do get fat.

 

 

Money in itself does not create obesity, try eating / drinking habits and the exercise or lack there of.

Decent video but was that Giraldo Rivera (sp) if it was in my opinion it just lost all credibility.

[RangerM]

Decent video but was that Giraldo Rivera (sp) if it was in my opinion it just lost all credibility.

 

It's John Stossel from 20/20. It's an excerpt of an hour-long episode......

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

Part 3

 

Part 4

 

Part 5

 

Part 6

 

 

The video (in my previous post) was provided from an editorial he wrote yesterday.

Edited July 2, 2009 by RangerM

[RaZor]

Gee, what a surprise . . . you selected a media correspondent widely known (for a long time) for the finest tradition of tabloid presentation: The Stossel Treatment -- Selective editing and other unethical tactics

 

Stossel's approach can transcend the merely embarrassing, becoming careless or unethical. His reports are billed as news, but they sometimes rely on questionable methods such as deceptive editing that distorts arguments made by interviewees, the exclusion of facts that might conflict with his personal opinion, and the provocation of guests so as to broadcast their reactions out of context.

[RangerM]

Gee, what a surprise . . . Rather than refuting the argument, you resort to an ad hominem attack.

[suv_guy_19]

There are countries that are wealthier per person than the US, and there are countries where the poor are better taken care of. As Ron said, wealth has nothing to do with the obesity problem.

[Roadtrip]

There are countries that are wealthier per person than the US . . .

 

There are a handful of mostly obscure and irrelevant countries that are "wealthier per person than the US", but how many depends on which source you cite (i.e., IMF, World Bank, CIA World Factbook, studies conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, etc.) and each of them present disparate results. There's also the methodology used for calculating Per Capita Income by Country, whether it's the Atlas method (which adjusts for currency values and inflation rates, based on individual countries' official statistics bureaus) or the Purchasing Power Parity method (which is an estimate of the cost of living in a given country, based on researchers' estimates). Even still, it is impossible to gain an apples-to-apples comparison of Per Capita Income by Country, not just because of corrupt government statistics reporting agencies or cost-of-living estimates calculated by fallible external researchers, but also because of differing social, cultural, political, and economic factors, most of which are qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, one cannot accurately measure the economic output of a stay-at-home mom who cooks all her family's meals, bakes bread, does all her family's housecleaning and yardwork, home-schools her kids, and does routine maintenance on her family's minivan. Her economic output is very real, but not easily measured, and not included in any country's Per Capita Income figures.

 

As for economic factors that vary from country to country, and which dramatically influence personal wealth (as well as its prospects), Russell Roberts, of the George Mason University Economics Department, proposes the following exam question based on an observation by New York Times columnist Robert Frank.

 

Observation:

For example, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal long ago, I hired a cook who had no formal education but was spectacularly intelligent and resourceful. Beyond preparing excellent meals, he could butcher a goat, thatch a roof, plaster walls, resole shoes and fix broken alarm clocks. He was also an able tinsmith and a skilled carpenter. Yet his total lifetime earnings were less than even a very lazy, untalented American might earn in a single year.

Question:

Why does a spectacularly intelligent and resourceful person in Nepal earn spectacularly less than a lazy untalented American?

Curious-minded individuals can get Roberts' answer here: Gifted in Nepal

 

. . . and there are countries where the poor are better taken care of.

Again, that's easy for you to say, but how do you measure and define "taken care of?" And how do you define poor?

 

Using the above example of the cook in Nepal, what if his government provides for all his food, clothing, and health-care needs? Is he really being "taken care of," even though his brightest economic prospects might involve living in a thatched hut for the rest of his life? If he is as intelligent and resourceful as the author says he is, then there's no reason to believe he couldn't gain the kind of economic prosperity that you and I could relate to -- except for the fact that he has neither the economic freedom nor the opportunity to do so. His government provides for ("taken care of," as you say) his immediate needs, while his prospects for future prosperity are remote. How then, in this hypothetical example, is this poor cook's government taking care of him, when he has no chance for a better future?

 

There's an old saying, which I believe is attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

 

American history is rich with examples of people who rose from impoverished backgrounds to prosperity and prominence. This didn't happen because the government was taking care of them; it happened because the government gave them the freedom and opportunity -- and at times, the hunger, by denying them security -- to do the hard work necessary to achieve their dreams.

 

As Ron said, wealth has nothing to do with the obesity problem.

 

Technically, obesity is caused by a greater amount of energy consumed (in the form of calories) vs. energy burned in the form of physical activity (although lying still burns a small amount of energy). So when low-income people have seemingly unlimited, government-provided access to high-calorie foods, coupled with no incentive to get up off the couch and turn off the soap operas and find a job (because the government is taking care of them), they gain weight. Lots of weight. Thus, the U.S. has the fattest poor people in the world. This is the modern-day version of the way our government takes care of its poor people.

 

Sidenote: I'm not implying that there is any provision in the U.S. Constitution that the government "take care of" its poor people -- there isn't. So for entertaining your straw-man notion that the U.S. government has any responsibility whatsoever for taking care of its "poor people" (other than ensuring their economic freedom and opportunity), you're welcome.

[macattak1]

Basically, the guy in Nepal could not do any better because of the Cast system.

But people in America are not so handicapped. Rise up and feed yourselves.

 

Imagine be so unconcerned about where your next meal is coming from because the Govt must give it to you. We are about 1/10 as self reliant as we were during the depression. Want to see chaos? Put us through that now. 0.o

 

Scary.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

I wasn't talking about Nepal. I was specifically speaking of Switzerland and Luxembourg which are trwo of the richest countries on earth, per capita, by any method. I was talking about Western Europe, Where mush larger expenses on social services occur by the government. To say that the problems of obesity happen because the US is too rich is just naive I woulds say.

[macattak1]

It is not just anyone thing. It is probably 3 or 4 major contributors.

 

Welfare should pay for rent, and WIC quality foods only. No candy, cookies, pre made meals, or highly processed foods. If more than 10% of it is made up of any combo of Sugar, Corn Syrup, High fructose, etc. then it should not be allowed to be purchased with Welfare funding.

 

Foods should be marked with a couple small colored dots if they do not have more than x amount of sugars, are not overly processed, and x amount of fat and calories do not come from lousy sources.

 

Kids should be forced to take Homec so that they are forced to learn how to cook an egg, make toast, fix vegetables, etc.

 

Then simply preasure via awareness needs to be brought against some of these companies. Not taxes, not fines, not fees. Just make them mark their garbage food with out those healthy dots or something. Then start talking about it and educating the people on it. Cheap crap food is one con from capitalism. If left unchecked they will cheapen the product as they need to increase the profits. But if we educated people more about this junk food they would have treasure to control, contain, and reduce the junk food.

 

Then educate people that diet foods and low fat means nothing. Food must contain so much ingredient. If you take out fat, you put in other empty calories to replace it. Every fat person I know drinks diet soda. Stuff will kill you, cause depression, heart disease (regular or diet), etc.

 

But the biggest reason people in this country are FAT is because they have Zero self control and do not understand what Moderation is. Learn those two and what makes crap food and one need not be fat.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

You may be surprised, but I petty much completely agree with that.

[Edstock]

Me too. Cheezies can kill.

[RangerM]

But the biggest reason people in this country are FAT is because they have Zero self control and do not understand what Moderation is.

 

Either that, or they smoke one hell of a lot of dope to get the joneses for something like this.

[sprinter]

 

Changing the laws to help BO out of a little problem that will not go away

 

Is Hawaii self-conscious about its unusual "certification of live birth" document because of attention focused on it over questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency?

 

The state, which had excluded the controversial document as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it stating in its qualifications that they are now accepted "because they are official government records documenting an individual's birth."

 

It was just one month ago that WND pointed out that the document Barack Obama has released as proof of a Hawaiian birth was not accepted by the Hawaiian Home Lands program, presumably because it was not a reliable test of an actual Hawaiian birth.

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408

Edited July 9, 2009 by sprinter

[suv_guy_19]

This is the song that never ends....

[fmccap]

Soldier: Obama not US born, can't send me to war...

[suv_guy_19]

I hope he gets discharged.

Edited July 15, 2009 by suv_guy_19