As requested, a reply to your comments on the excellent article with alternative ideas to reform health care. You stated:
Don, even though I’ve been burned on links before, I read much of this and scanned the rest. I don’t have the time nor patience to deconstruct it completely. However, IF anyone would not be objective about how single payer care would help the people of the US, the head of an international corporate hospital would be one of the first I would ignore, just after the CEO of Eli Lilly and the CEO of any of the top insurance companies. Almost everyone else would be for the change. Even today, as I rode the local rail to work a long time employee of a major insurance company said how much better a single payer system would be. She and another very close friend of mine who works with the largest insurance company both say they would rather lose their jobs and have universal health care. I've heard some drug companies have swallowed the ObamaCare cool-aide right along with you Orn. Can't imagine why they'd want to spend 150 million advertising FOR ObamaCare. Oh, wait. Won't they be getting MILLIONS of new customers? Hmm, I sense some incentive here. It is absolutely no surprise to me why PhRMA has become a cheerleader for ObamaCare. It does surprise me a tad that you are apparently unaware of this fact. As far as a hospital distrusting Government to pay them enough to cover costs I can sympathize. Their experience with other government run insurance sets a precedent. I suggest you read the entire article. I like the way Whole Foods does their insurance, makes perfect sense especially for younger employees that don't really need all the drugs and check ups us older guys do. Oh, and as to the very poor article you linked us to, the logic more than sucks by the author. He conflates Medicare with single payer, public option with single payer. Either he doesn’t understand how it would work or he is disingenuous about how he frames an argument. I found nothing of substance in it. Not a lot of detailed criticism here, Orn. What other system do we have to compare a fully integrated government subsidized health care system with other then Medicare? We could look at Britain's system or Germany's system I suppose but they are vastly different countries and we have different problems confronting us here in the USA and what may work for them(not well from what I've heard in England) might not work as well here. So to see what it might look like the closest example is Medicare. Doesn't that make sense to you? Again, nobody knows how single-payer health care is going to work in this country until it is tried. He is speculating and I think he proposes better alternatives then what ObamaCare looks like so far. For your convenience, here's the link again. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html#mod=djemWMP Uhhh, blaming concerned citizens??? What the heck is that? IF you mean the astroterfing…that has clearly been shown to be more deception and swiftboating directed by and funded by insurance companies. One would think that more people would be aware of this… Take a closer look and step away from the agitprop. I have no doubt there are some plants in the audience and I'm not a fan of Ron Paul and certainly not a fan of some of the more vulgar Nazi types that have shown up. However, I have seen some clips that show real people slupping up in baggy shorts and wrinkled golf shirts to voice REAL concerns. Concerns which I share. Maybe you think I'm uninformed but I don't believe I am. It is unfortunate some politicians would rather ridicule and malign rather then engage and refute. It is interesting you use the 'swiftboating' reference. Senator Kerry has still not released all his military records as he promised to do those many years ago. The man made a name for himself in the 70's as a self admitted 'war criminal.' If you were unaware of these facts and truly can't find links on your own I will gladly do so for you if you're interested. Explain how a man that claims to have thrown his medals over the white house fence has his medals framed in his congressional office? The physician that 'treated' him for his first purple heart claims the wound was negligible and wouldn't warrant a purple heart claim in a regular recruit. Here's the comments of that physician, Louis Leston: I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night. The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action. Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury which I treated. What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle. I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound. The wound was covered with a bandaid. Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat. -The man is too nuanced for his own good; and ours. We aren't going to change each others mind, I see. Curses, foiled again. My major concerns, without wasting time looking up links to support them, are 1)it will end up costing way too much and we are already grossly, shamefully in debt. If the government says this isn't true they are LYING. The middle class WILL be hit up for more taxes. 2)I like my current insurance and don't trust the government to run a company. Look at USPS(hey, you brought it up) and the shambles it's in to see how government runs a business. 3)I dislike the idea of giving away 'free' what should be purchased. Hospitals already treat accident victims and don't turn away emergency care. We don't need people clogging up dr's offices with hang nails and blisters and negligible cuts and bruises just because they can because they have 'free' insurance. If you'd read the article, there's a good section about the patient being aware of what the service costs. It comes down to smearing some Neosporin on a bloody cut and wrapping bandages around it at the house for a cost of about 2 bucks or going to the emergency room and getting a couple of stitches and getting a bill for around 400. I know which one I'd pick and the scar wouldn't even bother me. I can't stress enough how much it bothers me that individual responsibility is ignored. Let people be responsible for their own health. That's the way it's supposed to be. The government doesn't need access to my private bank accounts.(section 163) The whole idea creeps me out. I want them out of my business. In defense I hear about what the bill 'intends.' What I'm worried about is 'unintended' consequences. The whole things stinks of more government control and I hate it. It doesn't matter what the 'intended' purpose of something like the White House snitch site is if the 'result' is a compilation of email addresses of those that don't support the president. Can you imagine what the media uproar would have been like if the Bush White House would have asked for blogs and email addresses of those that didn't support the war on terror? There would have been pandemonium; and rightly so. We'll just have to agree to disagree. dj On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > “You got me Orn, I'm afraid I don't have anything but anecdotal > evidence of private practice in Britain. Might have that wrong…” - > DJ > > Don, thank you very much for not beating a dead red herring!!! ;-) > ….and your integrity here. > > “200 grand a year doesn't go very far when you have that much in > school loans still to pay and 100 grand a year in mal-practice > insurance to pay.” – DJ > Uhh, true enough Don. And, as I said, I forget the actual amount…in > BRITAN, not the USA. The doctors interviewed showed their houses (very > nice) and agreed that they lived very well. Of course, education does > not cost the same over there. In fact, education here in the States > wasn’t that bad until the Regan years and has been steadily going up > since then. Besides the obvious philosophical dogma that brought the > change by top politicians, my GUESS is that the proverbial ‘tax > revolt’ (of the rich) has directly affected funds available for > education here. > Oh, and as to mal-practice insurance…we can all guess that that would > change under a single payer system. > > “ Doesn't matter anyway because this is the USA and we'll have a > different system when the Dems finally decide to stop blaming > concerned citizens and actually vote on the damn thing. They don't > need a single republican vote to pass this and I marvel at all the > drama. Just give the blue dogs some juicy pork and get it done. This > dog and pony show(town hall meetings) is getting tiresome, don't you > think?” – DJ > > Uhhh, blaming concerned citizens??? What the heck is that? IF you mean > the astroterfing…that has clearly been shown to be more deception and > swiftboating directed by and funded by insurance companies. One would > think that more people would be aware of this… > > And, as to the Dems and the vote, it was the Republicans who postponed > the vote. Check the record. And, pork or no pork, the theater put on > by the radical and well heeled right, shades of the Bush dynasty’s > Florida chad count, is what I tire of most. And, of course, since the > most powerful (read: money) of the sponsors for corporate TV include > the drug pushers and mafia like insurance companies, I have no > question as to why this sort of drivel is broadcast 24/7. During the > reign of ‘W’, this type of action would have been touted as being > treason. Of course, ‘we the people’ will lose out (the main topic here > for me) when it comes to health care IF we all allow the propaganda of > multinationals to subvert our will. Like with the war in Iraq, the > majority of us want affordable health care, at least as good as the 37 > other countries ahead of us in this area. > > “Whether or not the rich deserve better health care is irrelevant. > The fact is they will get it no matter what system we end up with. I > would imagine that you would favor soaking them with taxes > regardless.” – DJ > > Don Don, soaking? I have countless times said that I agree with the > graduated income tax (meaning how it operated during our (US) zenith > over the last half of the 20th century). I have given examples, > anecdotal, of how this works well and most agree with it. This has > been inverted to the point where the have-nots now are expected to > fund more percentage wise than the haves! ‘They’ (we, unless you are > wealthy) are the ones being soaked today. > > “I think we differ on what we define as quality. While you may think > insuring everyone gives better quality I would say the opposite was > true.” – DJ > > Uhh, you could ask me. No, I don’t think that universal access to > health care by definition means better quality. It does what it does. > It gives MORE (in this case, meaning a better outcome) care to more > people. > As to the quality that you claim will be worse when we all pay into > one big pot for insurance and do not have to pay stock holders nor > insane CEO fees nor outlandish bonuses for failure, I can’t see how it > would be worse for those who use it. Perhaps, again, you could support > this claim? > > > “It doesn't take a google master to find articles on US cancer > survival rates. We have better(and more) facilities on average and > this is probably why folks come from all over the world to get > operated on here.” – DJ > > > Perhaps we both can agree that statistics can be purchased? > Regardless, my personal GUESS is that even whatever article you are > pointing to above, if any, does not take into account those who > couldn’t make it into the health care system due to poverty and just > died. As to ‘better facilities’, we do have more technology. Since you > are talking about cancer, the big things like MRIs, brain surgery, > etc. are almost entirely reserved for those who have GOOD insurance. > For the rest of us (the majority), we are turned down for > ‘experimental procedures’, not allowed treatment because of poverty > or, like the about 49% of bankruptcies here due to a medical ‘event’, > become less than slaves and surfs for the rest of our lives owing > money to just stay alive. Doctors know this. Nurses know this. They > are for single payer. > > Yes, some ‘folks’ (sounds kinda down home doesn’t it? ;-) ) come here > to get operated on. The technology and specialists who are reserved > for the top 2% here, can be used to help people like Shaws and Kings. > We know this. We also know that even the most rudimentary care for > alzheimer’s patents cost too much for upper-middle class people here > so in some cases they must move their parents to India for affordable > care! > > Since I haven’t asked you, since you appear to be for a system that > only supports the wealthy, do you prefer an oligarchy and/or fascism > in the classical meaning of these systems to what the US constitution > strives toward? (could be another topic) > > > > “If you honestly don't see how World organizations like the UN are > biased against the US there is really nothing else to discuss.” – DJ > > Oh, I would GUESS (not know, except for a couple of specific leaders I > have studied), that the majority of the leaders of other countries > wish to defend themselves against hegemony. And, being a supporter of > the principle of universality, I would support that view until US > policy quiets down. In their heart they may be attracted to our > experiment in government, but on a practical level, they have to > protect their own countries. Perhaps you don’t agree? > > “ I'm clearly biased against criminals and deadbeats. Is it a stretch > for me to expect 'world organizations' to be biased against the evil, > hateful, planet destroying, imperialist America?” – DJ > > Perhaps the problem here Don is the use of the term ‘biased’. All too > often it is used to imply an incorrect view when a view is just > different from one’s own position. Shall we just agree to look at our > own positions here? I can guess (as I did above) what others believe > and why as well as the next person. > “I won't try to defend anecdotal evidence. It influences me and I > offer it to explain my opinions but I don't think my folks Dr. would > let me run copies of his legal papers. Sorry to disappoint you Orn. > If you were truly interested in learning more about my references you > could easily google them. The fact that you chose not to tells me > anything I might find to support my opinion will go unread. Or > scanned.” – DJ > > Don, I don’t think I was asking for your MDs ‘legal papers’, whatever > that means. I merely was requesting support, as is the general policy > here, for your claims. I use anecdotes too. This is fine. However, we > both must admit that when it comes to the difference between opinion > and fact, regardless of emotional investment, the latter is more > attractive, no? And, the general ‘rule’ is that the person making a > claim is responsible for supporting it with evidence. I all too often > use google etc. to delve more deeply into topics. This one I was > looking for what YOU use for support. > > “Seriously? You're comparing the USPS with nationalized health care? > I could understand a gaff like that from an inexperienced and > economically naive new president but I expect more from you Orn.” – DJ > > First, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my analysis of the article > you linked me to. > > I must admit that I appropriated the analogy from Barak. And, since > much of the as I see it ignorant and/or purchased scare tactics used > against ‘socialist medicine’ is taking a position against government > involvement and suggesting a dire outcome. So, in this sense, the > analogy has some merit. Ignore it if you wish. > > “If you would bother to actually listen to what some of the public are > saying you would know that the government is already the biggest buyer > of medical care and when they pay hospitals and doctors they pay at a > rate much lower then the rest of us that have real insurance. How is > that competition?” – DJ > > > First, in direct response to your question, you are implying that > government insurance is not ‘real insurance’. Secondly, you imply that > ‘the rest of us’ have real insurance. . . meaning most of ‘us’. If you > have good insurance that doesn’t turn you down on claims and you can > afford it, all the best to you Don. I do not begrudge you at all. I > only look for ‘a more perfect union’ in helping those who need a > government to back them up. As to the competition, like the examples I > gave, the health industry can cut CEO pay, reduce stockholder options, > basically trim the fat at the top and throughout their corporation. I > know that other industries are good at that. I gave a couple of > examples even though they were borrowed. Also, they (private > companies) might have to get rid of groups like the American Hospital > Association (AHA) and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) whose > jobs are to increase costs for patients. I feel strange having to be > the apologist for competition here. Perhaps you could do better? :- ) > Oh, and do you think that ANY large or small insurance company has > given up on the elderly just because there is a governmental plan > available? You should know better. Look at AARP, one of the largest > insurance fronts around! They are all doing all too well, thank you > very much! So, competition already exists and more competition (not > the conflation of the current situation with single payer) exists, I > feel confident that all will be well. Don’t underestimate the > creativity of entrepreneurship Don!!! > > > “ As far as understanding how ObamaCare would work, I thought we'd > both come to the conclusion that NOBODY knows. All we can do is > speculate. That's all I'm doing.” – DJ > > Speculation noted Don. However, surfing the beliefs and logic under > all of this is of value, no? Oh, and only IF true single payer passes > will I accept the term ObamaCare. Anything else will be a failure for > sure. Mark my words here! > > The University pays roughly 700 bucks a month to cover myself and my > son. When or if this is discontinued I very much doubt if I will > receive a raise to cover this loss.” – DJ > > I am very happy for you and your son Don to have a good health plan. > Many do not. They already have only the POSSIBILITY of a public plan > to look forward to. > > “ I will be expected, possibly required(we don't know yet) to go on > the public plan.” – DJ > > Here you are projecting into the future POSSIBLE plan, right? > > “The service I'm talking about(I thought this was obvious, sorry) is > health care. As I've no doubt made painfully obvious I don't think > this service is a right. It is a commodity.” – DJ > > Well, Don, as a ‘commodity’, what is the problem with a governmental > health care plan too? Competition! > > “I think defenestration is a viable solution for much of societies > ills. I would like to start with the House of Representatives and > work my way up. Meet you on the Capitol steps, Orn? Ah, the sweet, > sharp smell of Revolution is in the air....or maybe it's the beans I > had for supper. I think a lot of CEO's got off too lightly. As for > the deadbeats in my past have no concern. It was a good learning > experience that has helped make me the cynical realist I am today. > Some of the best lessons are painful. I sincerely hope you never get > burned.” – DJ > > Thank you Don! This is all ‘hope I can believe in’! …even the Blazing > Saddles kind!!! Haha > Did you know that Bill McGuire is back with his old insurance company, > the one he got so much press for when it was divulged that he had > received a $2,700,000,000.00 stock option? > Oh, perhaps I have had some experience with ‘deadbeats’. Remember I > used to be a CFO for a manufacturing firm. I do remember being careful > who got credit. I do remember having to make the last call before > sending those who wrote bad checks or gave bad CC info to collection > etc. Is this what you mean? I already had budgeted a line item for > such write offs as does any well organized business. > > > > > http://lpa.igc.org/lpv25/lp05.htm > > > On Aug 15, 12:37 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here's a couple of links that may answer for the UK ... >> >> http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_/_... >> >> http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2... >> >> And here's the info for the U.S. (more or less) >> >> Specialty Salary Ranges (Annual, Pre-Tax) >> >> Anesthesiology :$311,000 to $446,000 >> Cardiology(Invasive) :$389,000 to $561,000 >> Cardiology(Non-Inv) :$332,000 to $439,000 >> Dermatology :$287,000 to $385,000 >> Emergency Medicine :$216,000 to $300,000 >> Family Medicine :$150,000 to $204,000 >> Gastroenterology :$330,000 to $498,000 >> General Surgery :$271,000 to $356,000 >> Hospitalist :$174,000 to $217,000 >> Internal Medicine :$175,000 to $209,000 >> Neurology :$203,000 to $298,000 >> Ob-Gyn :$231,000 to $304,000 >> Oncology / Hematology :$296,000 to $410,000 >> Orthopedics :$372,000 to $512,000 >> Pediatrics :$140,000 to $202,000 >> Plastic Surgery :$300,000 to $791,510 >> Radiation Oncology :$357,000 to $453,000 >> Radiology :$386,000 to $600,000 >> Pathology :$239,000 to $331,000 >> Psychiatry :$171,000 to $248,000 >> Urology :$352,000 to $426,000 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
