mikem12 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think you and S. are missing each other. You (Nick) and I think "liberal" in its current connotation. If you think of a "Classical Liberal", then you would be approaching what Libertarians are. (Wiki article) Obama, Pelosi, et al. are not "Classical Liberals". agreed they aren't Liberals they are lefties definitely not the same.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think you and S. are missing each other. You (Nick) and I think "liberal" in its current connotation. If you think of a "Classical Liberal", then you would be approaching what Libertarians are. (Wiki article) Obama, Pelosi, et al. are not "Classical Liberals". agreed they aren't Liberals they are lefties definitely not the same.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think you and S. are missing each other. You (Nick) and I think "liberal" in its current connotation. If you think of a "Classical Liberal", then you would be approaching what Libertarians are. (Wiki article) Obama, Pelosi, et al. are not "Classical Liberals". I can go with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) huh? maybe in a grand moral world, but in reality absolute freedom has nothing to do with responsibility. Bull. Absolute freedom without responsibility means chaos. No conscience, no rules, no morals, no norms, it is do whatever you feel like. This is not an appropriate way to live, unless you are on a little island with no one else around. Therefore freedom without any responsibility is worthless. If you can't understand that then so sorry. Edited October 1, 2009 by joihan777 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Obama, Pelosi, et al. are not "Classical Liberals". No, Pelosi would be (and Obama might be) Social Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Bull. Absolute freedom without responsibility means chaos. No conscience, no rules, no morals, no norms, it is do whatever you feel like. This is not an appropriate way to live, unless you are on a little island with no one else around. Therefore freedom without any responsibility is worthless. If you can't understand that then so sorry. Agreed. Free speech being a perfect example of this. Say what you want. But you have a responsibility to use the appropriately. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Bull. Absolute freedom without responsibility means chaos. No conscience, no rules, no morals, no norms, it is do whatever you feel like. This is not an appropriate way to live, unless you are on a little island with no one else around. Therefore freedom without any responsibility is worthless. If you can't understand that then so sorry. Bull? it may not be an appropriate, social way to live, but if your a power mad person it might be just fine. responsibility is not freedom, but it should accompany it. freedom with out responsibility is not worthless, how else does a teenager learn? ok maybe learn and the knwo it all teenager isn't a good example, or wording, but the point is that freedom in and of it self can exist with or with out responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 As for this whole Socialists/Liberal argument looks like we can tone it down a little as the public health care option(strange that the TARP, Farm price fixing,or countless other socialized programs that have been going on for years didn't draw fire) doesn't seam to have the muster to pass the house or senate. Then we can all pretend that we don't have any sort of socialism going on with all our friends, in a kind social way. We can still type about liberals with our liberty of free speech and be responsible with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (strange that the TARP, Farm price fixing,or countless other socialized programs that have been going on for years didn't draw fire) They drew plenty of fire from those who were paying attention. If the media had been putting as much attention on those things as it is on health care, you'd probably have seen the same outrage then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 They drew plenty of fire from those who were paying attention. If the media had been putting as much attention on those things as it is on health care, you'd probably have seen the same outrage then. there has been some, but if you put on Sean Insanity and Faux news he blames Obama for TARP, so the whole 'fair and balanced' is for not. reality is we have had socialist strains in our government since its inception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 there has been some, but if you put on Sean Insanity and Faux news he blames Obama for TARP, so the whole 'fair and balanced' is for not.reality is we have had socialist strains in our government since its inception. Hannity is a nutball. But really, he has said plenty of times that I've heard that Bush was a socialist, so who knows. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 there has been some, but if you put on Sean Insanity and Faux news he blames Obama for TARP, so the whole 'fair and balanced' is for not.reality is we have had socialist strains in our government since its inception. So, he should be blaming Bush for starting it AND Obama for continuing it? I can go for that. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Bull. Absolute freedom without responsibility means chaos. No conscience, no rules, no morals, no norms, it is do whatever you feel like. This is not an appropriate way to live, unless you are on a little island with no one else around. Therefore freedom without any responsibility is worthless. If you can't understand that then so sorry. I would like to make the hypothesis that we are now living in chaos. This chaos has been created by too much government meddling instead of allowing natural forces and balances to solve problems, and using government as a very last resort. Every time government gets involved, the "cure" creates side effects. These in turn lead to more laws and regulations. There are so many laws to-day that there is no person in the whole country that knows them all. For example, let's talk about law and order. First of all, you have the biggest criminals who are the ones on Wall Street. They were created and are protected by the government. The banking system is the biggest Ponzi operation in the world. Now let's look at crime on the street. The main causes are drug selling, gun running, and police corruption. If the prohibition on drugs and guns were lifted, there would be no more business for the dealers, and no more opportunity for police corruption. Our dependence on police enables the criminal. If we had the legal power to run undesirables out of our neighbourhoods, they wouldn't go there in the first place. People, by and large have an instinct for morality. We will not suddenly turn into wild animals if there was no law. Under our current system, it is easier for criminals to operate than it would be if there were no laws. We are now living what the authorities would have you believe would happen without them "looking after" you. They want to be your masters. It is like the Mafia forcing businesses to pay protection. It is to protect you against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) As for this whole Socialists/Liberal argument looks like we can tone it down a little as the public health care option(strange that the TARP, Farm price fixing,or countless other socialized programs that have been going on for years didn't draw fire) doesn't seam to have the muster to pass the house or senate. Then we can all pretend that we don't have any sort of socialism going on with all our friends, in a kind social way. We can still type about liberals with our liberty of free speech and be responsible with it. One of my disappointments with Obama is that he didn't have the chutzpah to push harder for a single payer option. We have one of the 2 major co-ops - Group Health - here in the Northwest. I know people on that plan. I have looked at that plan. I think most people in the U.S. don't have much knowledge of what the co-ops are like, and the idea that promoting them will create meaningful change in the health care situation is delusional. Even the President of Group Health was on the radio the other morning link - listen to the audio link noting that this is not a silver bullet for what is wrong with health care in the U.S., and that it is unlikely to have an effect on costs. Pam MacEwan, vice president of public affairs at Group Health, says she's taken aback by the attention from Congress. "We're surprised the discussion of cooperatives has gone as long as it has," MacEwan says. "Co-ops aren't a magic bullet." .... In the end, the main problem health care cooperatives solve may be a political one. People who oppose a public option for health insurance might back an alternative that's not run by the government. And people who support a public option might look to co-ops as the next best thing. So, to me, it looks like we are all set to get a big steaming pile of jack diddly squat out of congress on this issue, just when we need real change. Kicking the can down the road, fearful of the wrath of the ignorant and the selfish........ I have not talked to a single person who has first-hand knowledge of a single payer system in Western Europe or Japan, and of the situation in the U.S., who thinks that things are better in the U.S.. Not a single person (and I talk to and know plenty of people who have experienced these other systems - myself included). Talking about the healthcare issue with a corporate executive from Australia last week, I mentioned that my insurance company refuses to cover the blood pressure medication my doctor prescribed, but only a cheaper one that has known side effects that aggravate my asthma (which is why my doctor doesn't want to use it). She looked as if I had just told her that we eat babies. If any of you have used, or have close relatives who have used a single payer system in Japan, France, or one of the Scandinavian countries and think that the U.S. system is better, come out of the woodwork now. I acknowledge that there are points that make the discussion more complex - like the legal climate in the U.S. and tort reform. The constitutional argument is abstract: "Any powers not specifically assigned to the Federal government...." If that were the case, we would have no national parks, no interstate highway system, no rural electrification, etc. And of course, I notice the majority of people making that argument are young, healthy, well off, secure in their jobs with their employer health plans, or some combination of those things, and think that they're going to be just fine forever, that they're all ready for whatever comes, and that they've got it all figured out. Ask a middle age person with chronic conditions, a shaky employment situation, and not much savings if they're willing to pay over the counter for their insulin (which, judging from the price, is evidently squeezed from angel teats), or go shopping for new health insurance that'll cost 150% of their unemployment benefits if they get laid off - so that they don't have to lay awake at night worrying about the constitutionality of it all. We can talk about an amendment to ban flag burning, but not one for health care. Edited October 3, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 So Retro, you want more than you can afford to buy on the open market, and you want us all to believe that we should want to buy this for you and feel good about it? Does that about sum it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) If any of you have used, or have close relatives who have used a single payer system in Japan, France, or one of the Scandinavian countries and think that the U.S. system is better, come out of the woodwork now. Retro, I usually enjoy reading your posts, but I disagree with you rather severely on this one. I'm in the American medical field and my spouse/ her family is from Japan. I of course inquired into the nature of care there. The standards there are NOT the same as ours. I think one reason their standards of care are different is due, in part, to their homogeneous society. Notice I said different standards, not 'worse'. There the family has a much more significant contribution in caring for their loved ones. In America we would get sued for what goes on there simply because American sensitivities are very "service me now" oriented. In Japan respect is much more "two-way," from what I've seen. By the way, even though they get some things free, they still have to pay through the nose for other things. Especially meds, go ahead ask my father-in-law! Also, those countries you mentioned have very high tax rates to pay for the system thus many people there cannot afford homes as easily as we do here in USA. Ask your middle aged friend to sell his house to pay for his insulin. Seems many folks EXPECT to have their cake and eat it too. Not me. I'd rather have my house and my good job that I earned through years of hard work and going to career colleges for. You cannot threaten me & my family in order to take what you didn't earn and then give it to someone else so they can have their house and their insulin. I busted my chops to get what I have and I don't want no darn President & his cronies to take it from me or my children! Sorry if I come across angry but the fact that people aren't weighing things clearly is getting to the point of being dangerous. I'm willing to go as far as letting public health (county systems) accept more people under a sliding scale system, up to a point; and then only for a limited number of years. I even think the current VA system could use some more improvement. But that's it. Frivilous lawsuits need to be curbed. Personal responsibility must be proven, not shirked. Private markets need to be offered across state lines etc. Edited October 4, 2009 by joihan777 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Well Joihan, You did come out of the woodwork - thank you - and your knowledge does seem to be firsthand. My experience is different than yours: First, prescription meds: In January, my boss and I became quite ill while on business in Tokyo. On the third day, he gave up and said "I've gotta see a doctor." We went to a clinic nearby and checked in - cold call. There were several other people in the waiting room. After about 15 minutes one of us was called in, then the other. A nurse asked my symptoms, took my temperature, and swabbed my nose for a culture. We then told to wait in the waiting room. After about another 15 minutes, I was called in to talk to the doctor. He said I had Influenza Type A, and prescribed 5 medications: Tamiflu, a couple of things for my asthma, which was totally set off by the flu - he consulted me briefly about that - and 2 others that I don't remember. I went downstairs to the pharmacy to pick these up, and then to the cashier. My total cost for the testing, diagnosis, consultation, and 5 medications was about $150.00 with absolutely no coverage under their national health care plan. Any one of those 5 medications would have cost me $100.00 here at home. My father-in-law doesn't pay a dime out of pocket for his medications, so I'm not sure why yours is different. It is a well known fact that Americans can get the very same name-brand prescriptions or generic equivalents cheaper overseas than they can at home. Why do so many Americans go across the border, where they have no coverage whatsoever, to get medicines in Canada and Mexico? [for example] I have received medical care myself on 2 other occasions in Japan - once for a peanut allergy episode, and once for a digestive bug a few years back. My experience was similar each time. I was cared for quickly, effectively, and cheaply, despite having no coverage of my own. Next, to the standard of care and expectations of families: My wife is an only child, so family responsibilities have not been delegated to siblings in her case. Her mother went through the medical system there and died (lung cancer) a few years ago. The difference I remember in the standard of care was that she was in a room with 4 beds. Other than that, the care and treatment were I think similar to what she would have gotten here. More recently, my wife's father has been going downhill with dementia. About 9 months ago, we got him into an assisted living facility. Up to that point, he had been visited daily at his house by the "kaigo" people - a neighborhood welfare association - who would check in on him, look after his hygiene, perform some cooking and household tasks. This was all covered, except for something like a $30.00 / mo. charge. This went on for about a year. I ask you to stretch your imagination a bit and contemplate what the out of pocket would have been here. I'm not sure what his current costs are in the assisted living facility, but I do know that my late mother-in-law's school teacher pension covers it entirely. During the past year, he has been hauled out of there 3 or 4 times to the hospital for various things; pneumonia, possible stroke, diabetic episode,.... and gotten care at a local - privately run - hospital, covered by national health care. My wife has flown over each time this happens - not because she is personally required to be there to care for him, just to be there. Over the years, we have had many conversations with relatives about why does my wife have to work (most wives still don't in Japan). Invariably the subject of health insurance comes into these conversations, and we always receive sympathy for the way you're literally "on your own" here. The Guardian (UK) put it best in a July article announcing support of the AMA for healthcare reform: With no universal public programme akin to the National Health Service, Americans rely on a patchwork of employee-provided healthcare, government programmes for the poor, elderly and veterans, and costly private health insurance coverage. Americans spend one out of every six dollars on healthcare - roughly twice as much per capita as other industrialised nations - but lag behind in life expectancy, infant mortality and other health indicators. I don't know why people are so up in arms about the "inefficiency" of government-run health care, and so blind to the inefficiencies that are endemic to a system where there is no standardization in the claims process or coverage, various insurers have their own standards and processes - a "patchwork". I hear my own doctor's frustration about this. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that only 27.3% of over 2,000 physicians polled in all regions of the country supported private-only options for healthcare reform. link The other 72% favored either single-payer only or a combination. Housing prices in Japan are high because incomes are relatively high, land is scarce, and populations are concentrated. The most recent data I could Google up giving both countries (2007) had "Tax Freedom Day" on May 13th in Japan and May 16th in the U.S. - so we were actually paying a bit more in taxes that year. And of course, we spend it on different things. To go back to discussions on this board long before the name Obama ever came up, it is well known that insurance coverage was adding something like $2,300 to the cost of every car General Motors was producing - a competitive disadvantage. You know - it's swell to be different, but sometimes when all - and I do mean all of your peer group (other advanced nations) is doing something a certain way, it just might be for a reason. To hear some people talk, you'd think they'd be clamoring to adopt our wonderful free market "solutions" instead. I hear lots of talk that boils down to "I'm alright Jack get your hands off of my stack." and that makes me despair for the future of my country far more than any apocryphal stories about welfare queens. Because I'm old enough to remember that people used to be a lot more decent and a lot less crass - at least the ones I was ever exposed to. I don't know how else to comment on that. People don't seem to realize that they're just one catastrophic illness, or serious accident, or double extended layoff away from losing it all - from having to sell that nice house, just like you would have the guy on the insulin do. I am amazed at peoples short-sightedness, blind faith in the "free market" and willful ignorance - naivety - about the dark side of the for profit sector when it comes to health care. If the guy with the insulin didn't have a house to sell, or was upside down on it like a lot of people are now, would you kick him to the gutter and let him die? I hope I'm not making misinformed judgments, but that's about what I'm hearing from a frighteningly large portion of the country. Or perhaps I should say frighteningly vocal - because polls like the one mentioned here show that Americans in general favor a public option by roughly the same margin as the physicians in the NEJM poll mentioned above. So, my personal experience differs from you and your wife's. I can't account for the discrepancy, but I solicited experiences from those who have seen both sides, and you have provided yours, which I respect. I appreciate it. I agree with your final points about frivolous lawsuits, coverage across state lines, etc. Also, private coverage should be absolutely portable. xr7g428, all I believe is that insurance should be insurance - i.e. a collective (I know you right wingnuts hate that word) risk pool. Many people seem to lose the distinction between that and pay-as-you-go, which is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Retro, it isn't easy to respond when you say so much in one post, so I'm going to insert my responses in yours...... Well Joihan, You did come out of the woodwork - thank you - and your knowledge does seem to be firsthand. My experience is different than yours: First, prescription meds: In January, my boss and I became quite ill while on business in Tokyo. On the third day, he gave up and said "I've gotta see a doctor." We went to a clinic nearby and checked in - cold call. There were several other people in the waiting room. After about 15 minutes one of us was called in, then the other. A nurse asked my symptoms, took my temperature, and swabbed my nose for a culture. We then told to wait in the waiting room. After about another 15 minutes, I was called in to talk to the doctor. He said I had Influenza Type A, and prescribed 5 medications: Tamiflu, a couple of things for my asthma, which was totally set off by the flu - he consulted me briefly about that - and 2 others that I don't remember. I went downstairs to the pharmacy to pick these up, and then to the cashier. My total cost for the testing, diagnosis, consultation, and 5 medications was about $150.00 with absolutely no coverage under their national health care plan. Any one of those 5 medications would have cost me $100.00 here at home. That's great, but didn't someone else have to pay, if it wasn't you? My father-in-law doesn't pay a dime out of pocket for his medications, so I'm not sure why yours is different. Of course someone else does have to pay, since he isn't. It is a well known fact that Americans can get the very same name-brand prescriptions or generic equivalents cheaper overseas than they can at home. Why do so many Americans go across the border, where they have no coverage whatsoever, to get medicines in Canada and Mexico? Simple. Because they can. [for example] I have received medical care myself on 2 other occasions in Japan - once for a peanut allergy episode, and once for a digestive bug a few years back. My experience was similar each time. I was cared for quickly, effectively, and cheaply, despite having no coverage of my own. Again, who paid? The Doctor, the other citizens, nobody? Next, to the standard of care and expectations of families: My wife is an only child, so family responsibilities have not been delegated to siblings in her case. Her mother went through the medical system there and died (lung cancer) a few years ago. The difference I remember in the standard of care was that she was in a room with 4 beds. Other than that, the care and treatment were I think similar to what she would have gotten here. More recently, my wife's father has been going downhill with dementia. About 9 months ago, we got him into an assisted living facility. Up to that point, he had been visited daily at his house by the "kaigo" people - a neighborhood welfare association - who would check in on him, look after his hygiene, perform some cooking and household tasks. This was all covered, except for something like a $30.00 / mo. charge. This went on for about a year. I ask you to stretch your imagination a bit and contemplate what the out of pocket would have been here. Well, you did call it "welfare". I'm not sure what his current costs are in the assisted living facility, but I do know that my late mother-in-law's school teacher pension covers it entirely. Just curious, who pays the pension? Is that money that she earned/saved on her own, or is that money that came from the current taxpayer base? It's important because I want to understand whether or not the obligations have been shifted, just as they are/would be in the U.S. During the past year, he has been hauled out of there 3 or 4 times to the hospital for various things; pneumonia, possible stroke, diabetic episode,.... and gotten care at a local - privately run - hospital, covered by national health care. My wife has flown over each time this happens - not because she is personally required to be there to care for him, just to be there. Given that fact that Obama has said we should "have a conversation" about whether or not such persons should receive care, would you really expect his care to be identical here? (I'm referring specifically to the grandmother's hip question) Over the years, we have had many conversations with relatives about why does my wife have to work (most wives still don't in Japan). Invariably the subject of health insurance comes into these conversations, and we always receive sympathy for the way you're literally "on your own" here. My wife doesn't work outside the home. I give up the new car(s), most of the luxury items, and the vacation(s) for that. I believe I made the right choice for me. Do you think I'm a fool for making that choice? Is there some law that says I should not have to make that choice; I should get everything because I'm an American? The Guardian (UK) put it best in a July article announcing support of the AMA for healthcare reform: I don't know why people are so up in arms about the "inefficiency" of government-run health care, and so blind to the inefficiencies that are endemic to a system where there is no standardization in the claims process or coverage, various insurers have their own standards and processes - a "patchwork". I hear my own doctor's frustration about this. It's not just the inefficiency, it's the corruption The New England Journal of Medicine reports that only 27.3% of over 2,000 physicians polled in all regions of the country supported private-only options for healthcare reform. link The other 72% favored either single-payer only or a combination. Let's be very clear here. According to your own example, the physicians who favor "single-payer" (your favorite) is less than 10%. Even the general population has a higher percentage, and that's with a 53% opposition to the current government plan. Housing prices in Japan are high because incomes are relatively high, land is scarce, and populations are concentrated. The most recent data I could Google up giving both countries (2007) had "Tax Freedom Day" on May 13th in Japan and May 16th in the U.S. - so we were actually paying a bit more in taxes that year. And of course, we spend it on different things. Yes, and I'm sure that all the things we spend the money on are more important [/sarcasm] You want to talk inefficiency, let's spend $1.1 Million to study Alaskan grandparents. To go back to discussions on this board long before the name Obama ever came up, it is well known that insurance coverage was adding something like $2,300 to the cost of every car General Motors was producing - a competitive disadvantage. So since GM obligated itself to that, I should be willing to write the check? Pelosi herself said the other day that another GM/Chrysler bailout was not out of the question. You know - it's swell to be different, but sometimes when all - and I do mean all of your peer group (other advanced nations) is doing something a certain way, it just might be for a reason. To hear some people talk, you'd think they'd be clamoring to adopt our wonderful free market "solutions" instead. I hear lots of talk that boils down to "I'm alright Jack get your hands off of my stack." and that makes me despair for the future of my country far more than any apocryphal stories about welfare queens. Because I'm old enough to remember that people used to be a lot more decent and a lot less crass - at least the ones I was ever exposed to. I don't know how else to comment on that. So at one time, people wanted the government to force others to pay their bills? I'm really not trying to be crass, but I'm really wanting to know how (exactly) have people become so much less willing to help their neighbor. People don't seem to realize that they're just one catastrophic illness, or serious accident, or double extended layoff away from losing it all - from having to sell that nice house, just like you would have the guy on the insulin do. How exactly is that any different now, than it was 10, 20, 50 years ago? After my grandfather died in the '50s, my grandmother went to work. She didn't fold, and expect others to take care of her. Was she wrong? I am amazed at peoples short-sightedness, blind faith in the "free market" and willful ignorance - naivety - about the dark side of the for profit sector when it comes to health care. If the guy with the insulin didn't have a house to sell, or was upside down on it like a lot of people are now, would you kick him to the gutter and let him die? How is it that if someone else gets sick, it's somehow my fault? If I hit him with my car, it's my fault. If I inflict him with illness, it's my fault. If he "just gets sick", it's not my fault. That is not to say, I would do nothing to help him, but it is completely unfair to suggest that I would be the one "kicking him to the curb". Like it or not, there really are some who don't deserve to be helped. Would you kick the ex-chain smoker who's dying of lung cancer to the curb? Would you kick the drunk who now needs a liver transplant to the curb? The answer to both questions is no, regardless of what you do. You didn't inflict him with his condition. I hope I'm not making misinformed judgments, but that's about what I'm hearing from a frighteningly large portion of the country. Or perhaps I should say frighteningly vocal - because polls like the one mentioned here show that Americans in general favor a public option by roughly the same margin as the physicians in the NEJM poll mentioned above. Of course that's not the same as saying they favor the options currently on the table. A majority don't favor it's current form. So, my personal experience differs from you and your wife's. I can't account for the discrepancy, but I solicited experiences from those who have seen both sides, and you have provided yours, which I respect. I appreciate it. I agree with your final points about frivolous lawsuits, coverage across state lines, etc. Also, private coverage should be absolutely portable. That sounds like a "free market" solution; one that I can support. xr7g428, all I believe is that insurance should be insurance - i.e. a collective (I know you right wingnuts hate that word) risk pool. Many people seem to lose the distinction between that and pay-as-you-go, which is different. I honestly believe, Retro that you want what's best. Problem is, the leadership in this country isn't trusted. They see Stimulus plans that do nothing but drive up debt, they see bailouts of companies who "did it to themselves", they see Fannie/Freddie, they see Acorn, and then the same people associated with all those things say this: - More people covered by healthcare (excluding illegals, but we're going to make them legal, so it won't matter) - For less money (and there is so much free money being wasted in Medicare, and for some reason we've got no interest in reclaiming it unless we can get complete healthcare reform) - And everyone's healthcare will be improved. Sorry, but I'd think most would see this for the BS that it is. Edited October 4, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Well Joihan, You did come out of the woodwork - thank you - and your knowledge does seem to be firsthand. My experience is different than yours: First, prescription meds: In January, my boss and I became quite ill while on business in Tokyo. On the third day, he gave up and said "I've gotta see a doctor." We went to a clinic nearby and checked in - cold call. There were several other people in the waiting room. After about 15 minutes one of us was called in, then the other. A nurse asked my symptoms, took my temperature, and swabbed my nose for a culture. We then told to wait in the waiting room. After about another 15 minutes, I was called in to talk to the doctor. He said I had Influenza Type A, and prescribed 5 medications: Tamiflu, a couple of things for my asthma, which was totally set off by the flu - he consulted me briefly about that - and 2 others that I don't remember. I went downstairs to the pharmacy to pick these up, and then to the cashier. My total cost for the testing, diagnosis, consultation, and 5 medications was about $150.00 with absolutely no coverage under their national health care plan. Any one of those 5 medications would have cost me $100.00 here at home. My father-in-law doesn't pay a dime out of pocket for his medications, so I'm not sure why yours is different. It is a well known fact that Americans can get the very same name-brand prescriptions or generic equivalents cheaper overseas than they can at home. Why do so many Americans go across the border, where they have no coverage whatsoever, to get medicines in Canada and Mexico? [for example] I have received medical care myself on 2 other occasions in Japan - once for a peanut allergy episode, and once for a digestive bug a few years back. My experience was similar each time. I was cared for quickly, effectively, and cheaply, despite having no coverage of my own. Next, to the standard of care and expectations of families: My wife is an only child, so family responsibilities have not been delegated to siblings in her case. Her mother went through the medical system there and died (lung cancer) a few years ago. The difference I remember in the standard of care was that she was in a room with 4 beds. Other than that, the care and treatment were I think similar to what she would have gotten here. More recently, my wife's father has been going downhill with dementia. About 9 months ago, we got him into an assisted living facility. Up to that point, he had been visited daily at his house by the "kaigo" people - a neighborhood welfare association - who would check in on him, look after his hygiene, perform some cooking and household tasks. This was all covered, except for something like a $30.00 / mo. charge. This went on for about a year. I ask you to stretch your imagination a bit and contemplate what the out of pocket would have been here. I'm not sure what his current costs are in the assisted living facility, but I do know that my late mother-in-law's school teacher pension covers it entirely. During the past year, he has been hauled out of there 3 or 4 times to the hospital for various things; pneumonia, possible stroke, diabetic episode,.... and gotten care at a local - privately run - hospital, covered by national health care. My wife has flown over each time this happens - not because she is personally required to be there to care for him, just to be there. Over the years, we have had many conversations with relatives about why does my wife have to work (most wives still don't in Japan). Invariably the subject of health insurance comes into these conversations, and we always receive sympathy for the way you're literally "on your own" here. The Guardian (UK) put it best in a July article announcing support of the AMA for healthcare reform: I don't know why people are so up in arms about the "inefficiency" of government-run health care, and so blind to the inefficiencies that are endemic to a system where there is no standardization in the claims process or coverage, various insurers have their own standards and processes - a "patchwork". I hear my own doctor's frustration about this. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that only 27.3% of over 2,000 physicians polled in all regions of the country supported private-only options for healthcare reform. link The other 72% favored either single-payer only or a combination. Housing prices in Japan are high because incomes are relatively high, land is scarce, and populations are concentrated. The most recent data I could Google up giving both countries (2007) had "Tax Freedom Day" on May 13th in Japan and May 16th in the U.S. - so we were actually paying a bit more in taxes that year. And of course, we spend it on different things. To go back to discussions on this board long before the name Obama ever came up, it is well known that insurance coverage was adding something like $2,300 to the cost of every car General Motors was producing - a competitive disadvantage. You know - it's swell to be different, but sometimes when all - and I do mean all of your peer group (other advanced nations) is doing something a certain way, it just might be for a reason. To hear some people talk, you'd think they'd be clamoring to adopt our wonderful free market "solutions" instead. I hear lots of talk that boils down to "I'm alright Jack get your hands off of my stack." and that makes me despair for the future of my country far more than any apocryphal stories about welfare queens. Because I'm old enough to remember that people used to be a lot more decent and a lot less crass - at least the ones I was ever exposed to. I don't know how else to comment on that. People don't seem to realize that they're just one catastrophic illness, or serious accident, or double extended layoff away from losing it all - from having to sell that nice house, just like you would have the guy on the insulin do. I am amazed at peoples short-sightedness, blind faith in the "free market" and willful ignorance - naivety - about the dark side of the for profit sector when it comes to health care. If the guy with the insulin didn't have a house to sell, or was upside down on it like a lot of people are now, would you kick him to the gutter and let him die? I hope I'm not making misinformed judgments, but that's about what I'm hearing from a frighteningly large portion of the country. Or perhaps I should say frighteningly vocal - because polls like the one mentioned here show that Americans in general favor a public option by roughly the same margin as the physicians in the NEJM poll mentioned above. So, my personal experience differs from you and your wife's. I can't account for the discrepancy, but I solicited experiences from those who have seen both sides, and you have provided yours, which I respect. I appreciate it. I agree with your final points about frivolous lawsuits, coverage across state lines, etc. Also, private coverage should be absolutely portable. xr7g428, all I believe is that insurance should be insurance - i.e. a collective (I know you right wingnuts hate that word) risk pool. Many people seem to lose the distinction between that and pay-as-you-go, which is different. That's a lot to respond to, but there a few points that I think can enlighten the arguement. One is that the care you recieved may have been generally subsidized. I can't say one way for sure or not, but that is a possibility. They may have classified you as 'unable to pay' being a foreigner with no Japanese private insurance. Another reason the cost was low was they may have less costs involved in healthcare. Your experience was that of clinic visit, essentially. But if you were admitted I believe you would have seen a disparity between Japanese service and what you would find here in America. I know they aren't staffed as well as we are largely due to, in my belief, different cultural expectations. In my facility there are many Doctors & Nurses, but we have lots of administrative staff to keep us legal. There are also inordinate amounts of desk clerks to handle paperwork (Medicare/ MediCal).... a good computer program and electronic records embedded in drivers licenses would help alleviate that. What I'm saying is that their smaller country may have improved efficiencies that we haven't adapted yet which of course keeps their costs lower. I also know wait times are dependant, of course, on hosptial staffing & severity of illness (actual or potential) but what time of day you go. If you get sick on a Friday or Saturday night, bring a book. But on a good day you can be in & out just as fast here. Also, in Japan some meds are free, others are not. I wonder what percentage of tax money their governmant receives is allocated to healthcare. I don't think it's alright to turn people away from healthcare (anyone), but I also don't think it fair to force earners to give non-earners their money. In America there is NO reason one cannot make a decent living, even if that means scrimping on frivolities from time to time. And if he ends up in debt for his healthcare, then that person has to consider his priorities. No one is entitled to free anything if they can do it themselves. I know of many instances of people who receive government money/ healthcare because of their diseases (which are not as incapacitating as they can lead you to believe), yet these people are well enough to buy big screen TVs and go to Reno several times per year, with YOUR tax money....... it's disgusting. Republicans don't want to deny healthcare, we demand personal responsibility for it. It's easy for some to point to a secure, well off earner and say that person got a silver spoon and didn't earn his money therefore I'm entitled to it (believe me, this may as well be verbatim from Democrats I know). Or they say it's not fair that a person makes $50/hr while someone in the same company makes $10/ hr. They don't understand that the person making $50/ hr busted his bum for 4+ yrs in college (with no money to speak of) while the other guy was already working and/or enjoying life. Most Democrats (socialist/ liberals) I know can't appreciate that... they only believe they are entitled to a piece of the $50/hr guy's paycheck. Their hack unions further promote this boneheaded idealogy. I agree with you about the medication cost discrepencies.... I know companies charge what the markets will bear... but THIS market ain't too happy about them prices. However I wonder what would happen if Medicare decided to pay pharmaceutical companies an equivalent price to a world aggregate price? And other insurance companies followed suit? What would be the outcome? As mentioned earlier in my post, I also beleive the federal government should begin to legislate a universal claim form system that is efficient and portable. The current Medicare process is NOT efficient. At least in California we are starting to see some common documentation that is acceptable statewide (POLST forms) but it is a small beginning. I also agree that insurance companies may NEVER change a contract/ or drop a contract if the person's status changes... otherwise that company isn't really selling insurance, they are selling "get rich quick,".... for themselves. Edited October 4, 2009 by joihan777 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Retro, it isn't easy to respond when you say so much in one post, so I'm going to insert my responses in yours...... I honestly believe, Retro that you want what's best. Problem is, the leadership in this country isn't trusted. They see Stimulus plans that do nothing but drive up debt, they see bailouts of companies who "did it to themselves", they see Fannie/Freddie, they see Acorn, and then the same people associated with all those things say this: - More people covered by healthcare (excluding illegals, but we're going to make them legal, so it won't matter) - For less money (and there is so much free money being wasted in Medicare, and for some reason we've got no interest in reclaiming it unless we can get complete healthcare reform) - And everyone's healthcare will be improved. Sorry, but I'd think most would see this for the BS that it is. Ranger, Thanks for the reply, and for the benefit of the doubt that I really do want the right thing. One thing I will say for this debate is that it is forcing me to read. I will try to keep my answers and comments more concise. Answers: - As far as I know, the costs I saw were the complete and total costs that would have been billed to the "single payer" (government) had I been covered under the national plan. This is also the belief of my boss (I asked him) who is Japanese - born and raised near the clinic we went to. - Regarding the pensions, I don't know if they are fully funded by past deposits or not. It is well known that our Social Security was well funded until it was plundered to cover other things - like saving other programs in the face of Reagan era tax cuts. The right has been perfectly happy to see Social Security become insolvent to justify privatizing it (not sure if they still feel this way or not). Social Security money went outside Social Security, not the other way around - so if some has to come back in now, that's only right. Medicare, I don't know about. - My read of the NEJM article is that - as of July, when single payer was still on the table - 27.3% of Physicians supported private options only, 9.6% single payer only, and 62.9% a combination of the two - which is in fact what I favor, not single-payer only. For the record. - If we had not allowed our Industry to be plundered, dismantled, and sold off to the lowest bidder (see recent Time issue "The Crisis in Manufacturing") - a decision that was made decades ago and remains sadly unexamined - GM might still be funding its own obligations. I could be wrong. People do not go across the border to get pharmaceuticals simply because they can, they do it because they cost half as much there, even with the un-covered physician visit required to get a prescription included. My take on it is this: Pharmaceutical companies in the US are exploiting the insurance companies for a situation that does not, can not exist anywhere else in the world. Pharma executive compensation is directly tied to share price, which is tied to profits - which like almost everything else in US health care, have risen consistently year after year on record levels. They get not what a drug costs to produce plus a decent profit, but rather the absolute maximum that they can. These costs go onto the insurance companies who are under similar pressures to maximize profit, and pass their costs (or rather the costs of their record profits) on to consumers, company health care plans, etc. I don't know how anybody in their right mind thinks that this sort of "competition" is at all congruent with the goal of protecting the public health - or the health of our economy for that matter. Support for the health care plan currently being debated has eroded precisely because the public option is off the table. People have realized that a vocally hysterical minority - buffaloed by or in the pocket of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries - are driving the agenda now, and no real solution can possibly result. Again, when every single solitary last one of your peer groups is doing something a certain way, you might give some real thought as to why that is, and some real thought as to who is leading the discussion counter. Follow the money: Ok, here I am going to reveal my selfish side: I want my money to go into my healthcare (and yours, and yours, and yours) and not into the pockets of a largely parasitical portion of our population: I am talking about the investor class (if the revelations of last Fall didn't convince you of that, nothing will), not the welfare queens - we'll deal with them too. Clinton actually had quite a bit of success on that front. Bush has left us.... well, Bush has left us. p.s. You're a mensch for being able to keep your wife at home. Obviously not an Architect. I assume you have responsibly covered yourself against most contingencies, and hope you will never be tested by adversity. Edited October 4, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) I have a difficult time inserting my comments, so I'll just go outside the quotes. Ranger,Thanks for the reply, and for the benefit of the doubt that I really do want the right thing. One thing I will say for this debate is that it is forcing me to read. I will try to keep my answers and comments more concise. Answers: - As far as I know, the costs I saw were the complete and total costs that would have been billed to the "single payer" (government) had I been covered under the national plan. This is also the belief of my boss (I asked him) who is Japanese - born and raised near the clinic we went to. - Regarding the pensions, I don't know if they are fully funded by past deposits or not. It is well known that our Social Security was well funded until it was plundered to cover other things - like saving other programs in the face of Reagan era tax cuts. The right has been perfectly happy to see Social Security become insolvent to justify privatizing it (not sure if they still feel this way or not). Social Security money went outside Social Security, not the other way around - so if some has to come back in now, that's only right. Medicare, I don't know about. - My read of the NEJM article is that - as of July, when single payer was still on the table - 27.3% of Physicians supported private options only, 9.6% single payer only, and 62.9% a combination of the two - which is in fact what I favor, not single-payer only. For the record. - If we had not allowed our Industry to be plundered, dismantled, and sold off to the lowest bidder (see recent Time issue "The Crisis in Manufacturing") - a decision that was made decades ago and remains sadly unexamined - GM might still be funding its own obligations. I could be wrong. When you said, "One of my disappointments with Obama is that he didn't have the chutzpah to push harder for a single payer option", I took that to mean it was your preferred option. My mistake. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Yes, the money was exchanged for IOUs and then used to fund other, presumably unrelated, things. My guess it was most likely pork. It just goes with the territory. BUT, even if that money had been put in an "Al Gore lockbox", the money would still run out. How do I know this? Because the trust fund (full of these IOUs) will go dry in the next couple of decades, due to the demographic shift in the country. There are simply too many baby-boomers who didn't replace themselves, and a whole lot of those they did produce, won't be able to match their economic impact. You can say that the loss of manufacturing jobs is a contributor, but I think the more likely reason is that the rest of the world caught up. After WWII, America was the only game in town, as far as industrial might, and now we are suffering the results of our complacency, no different than GM being overtaken by Toyota, just on a larger scale. People do not go across the border to get pharmaceuticals simply because they can, they do it because they cost half as much there, even with the un-covered physician visit required to get a prescription included. My take on it is this: Pharmaceutical companies in the US are exploiting the insurance companies for a situation that does not, can not exist anywhere else in the world. Pharma executive compensation is directly tied to share price, which is tied to profits - which like almost everything else in US health care, have risen consistently year after year on record levels. They get not what a drug costs to produce plus a decent profit, but rather the absolute maximum that they can. These costs go onto the insurance companies who are under similar pressures to maximize profit, and pass their costs (or rather the costs of their record profits) on to consumers, company health care plans, etc. I don't know how anybody in their right mind thinks that this sort of "competition" is at all congruent with the goal of protecting the public health - or the health of our economy for that matter. The problem as I see it, is an apparent lack of perspective (maybe mine, maybe yours). Sure, you can go to Canada and get a medicine at a lower price. As far as I'm concerned, go for it. I'm all for getting it mail order from there, any day of the week. My guess is that if our country opened up trade for pharmaceuticals, the same way it opens up trade for other things, you'd see prices come down precipitously. However, as I understand it, many drugs simply aren't available overseas. Support for the health care plan currently being debated has eroded precisely because the public option is off the table. People have realized that a vocally hysterical minority - buffaloed by or in the pocket of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries - are driving the agenda now, and no real solution can possibly result. Again, when every single solitary last one of your peer groups is doing something a certain way, you might give some real thought as to why that is, and some real thought as to who is leading the discussion counter. Follow the money: Ok, here I am going to reveal my selfish side: I want my money to go into my healthcare (and yours, and yours, and yours) and not into the pockets of a largely parasitical portion of our population: I am talking about the investor class (if the revelations of last Fall didn't convince you of that, nothing will), not the welfare queens - we'll deal with them too. Clinton actually had quite a bit of success on that front. Bush has left us.... well, Bush has left us. I'm not going to agree with your assessment of why support has fallen. It may be true from your perspective, but from what I've seen many (if not most) have seen what the politicians have in mind (H.R. 3200), and give it "two thumbs down". I know I do. You have Obama (et al), out there saying you get to keep your insurance, and then read in HR3200 that while that's true, it's only true for up to 5 years. Then you have to have a government-specified plan. Obama is lying (by omission), and the people paying attention know it. My ideal situation would be to solve every problem, everywhere. But I also know that's not going to happen. So, I must prioritize. After defense, I'd give up every program on the Government books, if it meant everyone has a job that enables him/her to take care of him-/herself. That is my idea of utopia. Everyone is able to take care of himself, and is willing (and able), to help those who can't. By effectively undermining peoples' incentive, I don't see how the Government is taking steps to achieve that goal. p.s. You're a mensch for being able to keep your wife at home. Obviously not an Architect. I assume you have responsibly covered yourself against most contingencies, and hope you will never be tested by adversity. Had to look that one up before I responded. Thanks, but for me it really isn't a matter of choice. It's what I expect of myself. Believe it or not, I consider myself a bit of a feminist. That being, women should be able to choose their destiny. I just prefer they "choose" to stay at home, and I work to allow my wife to make that choice. Thankfully, she did. She balked at first, but after our first daughter was born, she never regretted it. Honestly, I can't say I'm where I'd like to be (savings-wise). My retirement savings are fine, but I'm not exactly swimming in liquidity. I've been fortunate to have found a job that I've been able to keep for 17 years, but just as I'd imagine yours (based on what you've said), it's "feast or famine". Sometimes we have to delay making payroll, and other times we can afford to give a bonus. It's not easy, and with the drop in manufacturing it isn't getting easier. But, it's just made me more competitive. Our company has grown this year, because we've held the line on prices, while maintaining customer service. Long hours, but hard work still pays off; it just has to be smart work. I don't know (or remember, sorry) if you've ever said, do you design commercial or residential? Edited October 4, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 You can say that the loss of manufacturing jobs is a contributor, but I think the more likely reason is that the rest of the world caught up. After WWII, America was the only game in town, as far as industrial might, and now we are suffering the results of our complacency, no different than GM being overtaken by Toyota, just on a larger scale........... I don't know (or remember, sorry) if you've ever said, do you design commercial or residential? I have many times mentioned an economic figure that I got out of the 1962 World Book Year Book "Economy" article: in 1962 foreign trade amounted to about 3% of US GDP vs. over 33% more recently. Therefore, it is not exactly as if we were selling tons of manufactured goods to these countries that were "catching up". Take a look back at that 1962, do a little digging and find out what automobile manufacturers (to name just one sector) were active in what countries. I think you will be surprised at what vital domestic economies most Western European countries and Japan had by that time - without the benefit of massive exports to the US. Do the same for appliances or electronics or steel. I think the problem is entirely that we let the gates swing wide open to a global equalization of wages (one of the almost certain eventual results of "free trade"). So China and Malaysia get cars and flat screens, and we get hardship. What a bargain! What's not to like!?!? Taking the long view - and in response to the question "What did our fathers do about health care 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years ago?" My recollection is that 40 years ago, employer-provided medical insurance was much cheaper and more common, drug prices were much lower, co-pays and employee contributions were non-existent, the minimum wage was much higher in real purchasing power, pensions were more common, and our fathers had job security and outlook for the future that we can't begin to fathom (witness the many of them enjoying comfort and security in retirement that most of us dare not expect). So, having given up so much of that in exchange for globalization and making the rich richer (as borne out by census and other economic statistics), and the health care situation being by almost universal agreement deplorable, is guaranteed universal healthcare not a reasonable request in exchange for all that has been given up? I think so. Re. some other points - now I feel like I need to read the whole phone-book sized bill to find these hidden glitches. I have done residential - mostly in Japan - but the bulk of my work is commercial; retail in particular, which is dead in the US at the moment, but still active in Japan and China and other countries that haven't succeeded in screwing themselves up entirely. That's where my big projects are at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I have many times mentioned an economic figure that I got out of the 1962 World Book Year Book "Economy" article: in 1962 foreign trade amounted to about 3% of US GDP vs. over 33% more recently. Therefore, it is not exactly as if we were selling tons of manufactured goods to these countries that were "catching up". Take a look back at that 1962, do a little digging and find out what automobile manufacturers (to name just one sector) were active in what countries. I think you will be surprised at what vital domestic economies most Western European countries and Japan had by that time - without the benefit of massive exports to the US. Do the same for appliances or electronics or steel. I think the problem is entirely that we let the gates swing wide open to a global equalization of wages (one of the almost certain eventual results of "free trade"). So China and Malaysia get cars and flat screens, and we get hardship. What a bargain! What's not to like!?!? Remember what Japan was getting instead of exports to the U.S.; U.S. military protection. Also, I will cite the US Census historical statistics on international trade as an example of how the rest of the world caught up. Here is a direct link to the actual document (PDF), and here is the link to the page it came from. We got fat-and-happy, and complacent, and now we are getting our collective @$$es kicked (in certain sectors). We have not lost our abilities, unless we surrender them. Remember what I said in my previous post. My company is doing well (relative to our competitors anyway), because we have worked harder than our competitors to maintain our level of service (and hold the line on prices) and have expanded our business as a result. Right now (when things are down) is the best opportunity that any small company could have to compete against larger competition. Taking the long view - and in response to the question "What did our fathers do about health care 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years ago?" My recollection is that 40 years ago, employer-provided medical insurance was much cheaper and more common, drug prices were much lower, co-pays and employee contributions were non-existent, the minimum wage was much higher in real purchasing power, pensions were more common, and our fathers had job security and outlook for the future that we can't begin to fathom (witness the many of them enjoying comfort and security in retirement that most of us dare not expect). So, having given up so much of that in exchange for globalization and making the rich richer (as borne out by census and other economic statistics), and the health care situation being by almost universal agreement deplorable, is guaranteed universal healthcare not a reasonable request in exchange for all that has been given up? I think so. Problem is, you are comparing 1960s medicine with 2000s medicine. Back then, cancer was much more likely an automatic death sentence. There was no such thing as insurance-paid-for Viagra, or insurance mandates, or MRI, and Medicare was the size of a rotary club (and didn't exist prior to 1965). AND, many people paid for their medical care out of pocket. Would you trade them to go back to the '60s, with its positives AND negatives? Do you see a correlation between these advancements and the overall cost of medicine? These things cost money (and we haven't got into the subject of how gold-plated insurance policies drive up the cost of medicine for all). The relative increase in demand for healthcare, provided by insurance, has enabled prices to skyrocket, because fewer people are exposed to what things actually cost than they were in the '60s. Imagine increasing that demand through "universal healthcare". What happens to prices when demand is unlimited with a limited supply? I know we aren't discussing it, but I know many like to say that with universal healthcare the resources we have will be more efficiently utilized (fewer ER visits, more preventative care). That's a fallacy. If you need an example, look at Massachusetts. After the implementation of their "government option" or "insurance reform", emergency room visits (by those covered) did not go down. This was outlined in an article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, September 2009 issue. (I don't have a direct link to the article, but here is the closest thing I could find) From the article.... As a secondary analysis, visits for patients covered by the uncompensated care pool (UCP) before health care reform was not different from the combined frequency of visits by the remaining uninsured covered by a health safety net pool and those who qualified for the state subsidized Commonwealth Care program after health care reform. In the simplest terms, universal healthcare is not a magic bullet. Re. some other points - now I feel like I need to read the whole phone-book sized bill to find these hidden glitches. I have done residential - mostly in Japan - but the bulk of my work is commercial; retail in particular, which is dead in the US at the moment, but still active in Japan and China and other countries that haven't succeeded in screwing themselves up entirely. That's where my big projects are at the moment. Best of luck in your business. I'm glad "international trade" is working for you. (No, that's not intended as a dig, but it is something to think about. You are expanding your business horizons, too.) Edited October 7, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) Probably 90% of my fee dollars have come from Japan over the past 13 years - which is why I used to sometimes get defensive. This was true during the 3 years when I was on my own too. I'll admit to a little irony in that. In an alternate universe, I would be a bookish scholar of the country, saving up for the occasional trip to a much more exotic and distant Japan. As it is, I have good friends in Tokyo who I see more often than certain family members who live 30 miles away..... It is a bit tragi-comic right now to see the sudden rush among members of my profession to do "International work". That and health care (hospitals). Everybody thinks that's where the money is. Because there is precious little else moving right now. I am watching the 800 person firm I worked for 10 years ago literally implode. It's now about a 350 person firm. Rock solid people with 20 years experience out on the street. All except for their China business - which has to contain some irony for those on the right. link Edited October 9, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Interesting talk on health care - if you have the 45 minutes to listen - by T.R. Reid: link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.