^^ I suspect UPS and maybe FedEx could profitably offer first class mail for less than 44 cents, it is just that they would go to prison for trying.

9/30/2009 11:21:24 AM

^^Well I wouldnt. I don't get my mail 20% of the time. That's no exaggeration either, my mail service is TERRIBLE. All my point was, when given the choice, it seems like consumers choose private enities enough for the private entity to profit and the public one to go in the hole (it's more than JUST this past year). Look at this analogy, who would you trust more to get your package to its destination (USPS or UPS/FedEx). If you say USPS youre full of bullshit.

9/30/2009 11:33:06 AM

i have a hunch you're exaggerating. i think in my entire life i've had one piece of mail that was lost. and i'm not entirely sure that the sender was being honest with me to begin with.

^and i wouldn't trust ups 11 times more. if i was mailing my passport to the state dept. or something i'd use fedex. otherwise, i'd probably be fine with usps.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 11:42:30 AM

im really not, my mail carrier sucks. in the past I've had a little better but this one sucks, I'm ALWAYS getting my neighbor's mail. Anyways youre exactly proving my point, for something important you go with the private option, not the government. I would say healthcare is pretty important

9/30/2009 11:53:10 AM

Quote :

"for something important you go with the private option, not the government."

Hardly. For something essential, you go to the government.

Roads. Police. Fire Departments. Military.



And btw, is anyone here still advocating nullification? I'd like to have this conversation.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2009 12:03:21 PM

^Thats because we have to for those things, when given the choice, people go for the best option, not the public one.

9/30/2009 12:09:12 PM

Quote :

"Thats because we have to for those things"

We don't have to for those things. There are plenty of private options.

Toll roads, private security, private fire departments, mercenaries.


[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2009 12:12:41 PM

as a consumer we HAVE to, there are no other realistic options, which is what im afraid would eventually happen with a public healthcare option

9/30/2009 12:15:09 PM

I've put all my faith in Weiner at this point.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason : I before E, except after W]

9/30/2009 12:17:39 PM

^^ Do you really wish you had a private option for all the things I mentioned?

9/30/2009 12:19:05 PM

Personally, I wish the Fire Department was profit-oriented rather than "saving my life" oriented. I think that would give me the best quality of service.

9/30/2009 12:21:51 PM

Quote :

"And btw, is anyone here still advocating nullification?"

I don't think so. What people are advocating is legal challenges to laws perceived as unconstitutional. That is still ok, isn't it? I'd like to think so.

Quote :

"In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option Reporting from Vancouver, Canada - When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year. So wait she did. In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor." So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27%2C0%2C5111855.story

(yes I realize the public option has been defeated, but I don't count public option advocates out of the fight in the long run).


^ The Rescue Squad in Enterprise, Alabama is private and consistently ranked as one of the best in the state.

9/30/2009 1:19:19 PM

Quote :

"I don't think so. What people are advocating is legal challenges to laws perceived as unconstitutional. That is still ok, isn't it? I'd like to think so."

What was described on the last page was an illegal legal challenge.

9/30/2009 1:23:30 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I wish the Fire Department was profit-oriented rather than "saving my life" oriented."

Cute. I assume you think the skill required to point a water hose at a fire is equal to the skill to remove a brain tumor too, and the cost of training are equal as well.

9/30/2009 1:24:33 PM

^^ A possibly illegal legal challenge to a possibly illegal law. That is for the courts to figure out.


^ While those two aren't completely comparable, firefighting is no joke and requires traits that are in short supply as well. People pay for more than just intelligence. The benefit of a private fire fighting or private EMT agency is the fact that the town can fire and replace them if their services fall below the public's expectation. Removing tenured government employees is a bit more difficult.

9/30/2009 1:25:49 PM

Quote :

"Cute. I assume you think the skill required to point a water hose at a fire is equal to the skill to remove a brain tumor too, and the cost of training are equal as well."

Of course not, you blathering fucking idiot.

Plenty of people are paid higher in government-funded positions. A good example is a researcher at a public university who is doing something more cost-intensive, skill-intensive, and time-intensive than "pointing a fire hose". Way to be obtuse though. Why, again, would God think any of the things you suggested?

9/30/2009 1:26:28 PM

so angry

9/30/2009 1:29:02 PM

You're acting like I should be tolerant of stupid fucking bullshit. Sometimes I get irritated.

9/30/2009 1:29:50 PM

heathcare doesn't have to be for profit, it just needs to be sustainable. In the past the market creates a system thats profitable and thus sustainable, but in many places in our economy this has become practically impossible thanks to interference (in both directions) between the gov and corporations. Insurance as a means to have a sustainable heathcare system is retarded because people will always put more money in than they take out. A public option is no different, they just shore their losses with tax payer money instead of increasing premiums.

The only way the system can be sustainable is if people pay the majority of the direct costs (as in what the doc gets paid) themselves. There are only two ways to bring those prices down. A free market where insurance providers and other interests dont corrupt government to distort prices, or price controls where the gov sets prices for every item (the french system). Its hard to see either one going over well in our current environment which means we'll probably end up with another unsustainable "insurance" system like medicare or social security.

9/30/2009 1:57:32 PM

also better education and energy prices can be used to make healthcare more affordable.

9/30/2009 2:01:31 PM

^^Totally agree. This public option does nothing to bring prices down.

9/30/2009 2:10:19 PM

^^^costs for private insurance have increased faster than medicare costs have over the past two decades.

9/30/2009 2:26:38 PM

Have you ever thought thats because private insurance benefits are greater?

Quote :

"Now, some say that because the "market" has failed, greater government control is the answer. Private insurance has high overhead costs and generates too much paperwork. True. Still, there's not much evidence that over long periods government controls health spending any better. From 1970 to 2003, Medicare spending rose an average of 9 percent annually, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation. In the same years, private insurance costs rose 10.1 percent annually. Part of the gap reflected private insurance's greater generosity. It covered drugs while Medicare didn't."

http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/medicare_vs_pri.html

9/30/2009 2:39:17 PM

so their costs should increase at a greater rate?

are the extra benefits they're offering increasing in costs faster than the services that medicare offer? why?

9/30/2009 3:02:26 PM

because cutting edge medicines cost more on the whole

9/30/2009 3:05:56 PM

also: pharmaceutical advertising needs to go. we and new zealand are the only countries that allow this sort of direct marketing. i'd be interested to see what the advertising versus r&d costs are for some of these drug makers.

9/30/2009 3:10:47 PM

^I agree. They need to make money, but I think the whole pharma-doctor relationship is corrupt.

9/30/2009 3:13:45 PM

Quote :

"pharma-doctor relationship is corrupt"

There are actually a ton of new laws to stop even the thought of that happening. Drug companies are now severly limited on the amount of time and CE/events they can do for docs.

Although I get patients that swear I get a kickback from every RX I write. You cant cure stupid.


Cash, I was in no way talking down to firefighters, I hope you didnt take it that way. And my cousin is an EMT and you would be shocked what he gets paid for the amount of training and importance of that job.

I agree with sarijoul about the ads though. People come in asking for these meds they see on TV, no doubt driving up costs.

Isnt BC/BS of NC is a nonprofit?

9/30/2009 3:27:42 PM

corrupt != legal, whether it happens with you or not is one thing, but it does happen. also doctors dont take costs into mind when they are prescribing medicine, they just prescribe a lot of times what has been pounded into their heads by the pharma companies

9/30/2009 3:43:36 PM

Quote :

" doctors dont take costs into mind when they are prescribing medicine, they just prescribe a lot of times what has been pounded into their heads by the pharma companies"

I honestly used to try to consider costs. However, it simply took too much time to look up the formularies for each persons insurance esp when it would often be wrong info anyway. For example, I would write for a drug direcly off of a medicaid formulary, and then get a call within minutes that THIER PLAN didnt cover that drug, when Im looking right at it. Plus the countless rx plans for one insurance. You can have BC/BS but there are lots of different levels of coverage and tiers to drugs. It was just a waste of time.

So now I just write for what I think works best or the best generic if they dont have any insurance, as do most doctors. Believe it or not, most of us arent mindless drones of the pharms tmmercer. lol

9/30/2009 3:52:12 PM

Quote :

"costs for private insurance have increased faster than medicare costs have over the past two decades."

Partly because Medicare isn't fully compensating doctors and they have to make up for that shortfall through increased charges to the insurance companies. I posted a chart about that earlier in this thread IIRC.

9/30/2009 5:21:03 PM

Education costs are rising faster than medical costs, why arent we talking about cutting funding to schools by 40% over 4 years?

9/30/2009 11:07:54 PM

^I actually agree. Where is the uproar on education costs? I dont mean providing education to more people via grants/scholarships, but why has the actual cost increased much higher than the rate of inflation?

10/1/2009 9:30:26 AM

probably because people like to waste money on things like buying laptops for every child

10/1/2009 9:36:59 AM

i would tend to agree that education is a much bigger priority over health care costs

face it, healthcare is a 'new' 'right', and frankly I don't think it should be a right, it should be a privilege granted with a job (the employer wants to get production out of you not sickness/injury)

i still don't think that anything the government plans to do will affect it's cost one cent to the vast majority of citizens.

i'd rather they get with it on education and beat the shit out of the teachers union (frankly it's too strong in many cases allowing crap teachers to keep on teaching more often than protecting good teachers from incompetent management), individualize education money to the child, who then can go to any school of their choosing and thus bringing the money with them (to a limit of course by either first come first serve or lottery if it comes to that). this should FORCE schools to compete with each other for teacher talent, teacher pay, and good quality educational opportunities. (btw government run preschool is a horrible idea, their headstart program sucks nuts (no advantage by 2nd grade)

as for the kids that don't want to go to school have them work in the fields instead and see how fast they decide that perhaps school isn't such a bad idea...

the costs of higher education are almost completely different by contrast with primary and secondary education...

10/1/2009 3:32:54 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/Boehner_searching_for_first_public_option_backer.html?showall

Boehner says he hasn't met any regular American who supports a public option.

But never fear! I have emailed his office and offered my time (as I'm in DC for the next few months and residing just a few blocks from his office) so that he can meet with one of us rare unicorn-like citizens who supports a public healthcare option.

10/1/2009 8:42:55 PM

Quote :

"regular American"

It's circular reasoning. If you support a public option, you must be a liberal elitist.

10/1/2009 9:52:22 PM

Quote :

"The reality is that the USPS has been financially independent since the 1980's."

BULL FUCKING SHIT. The USPS has NEVER, NOT ONCE, turned a profit. You need to check your facts.

Quote :

"costs for private insurance have increased faster than medicare costs have over the past two decades."

That's because private insurance is having to make up for what medicare doesn't pay. duh.

Quote :

"as for the kids that don't want to go to school have them work in the fields instead and see how fast they decide that perhaps school isn't such a bad idea..."

Ahahahahaha. Tons of minorities in the fields? You don't think that would raise hell?

10/2/2009 10:26:43 PM

Quote :

"If you support a public option, you must be a liberal elitist. "

Or thinking like a child that thinks everything should be free and handed to them. (you left that out)

Im glad to see that the supporters of the public option have now dropped the competition arguement. Some signs of higher thinking.

10/3/2009 8:48:33 AM

Quote :

"that thinks everything should be free and handed to them"

Everything? Really?

I want gov't to involve itself in a handful more areas than you, and that relatively small distinction allows you to call me a child?

10/3/2009 11:14:44 AM

Quote :

"BULL FUCKING SHIT. The USPS has NEVER, NOT ONCE, turned a profit. You need to check your facts."

Well, that's not quite true:

http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt07/summary.htm
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Net (Loss) Income $ (5,142) $ 900 $ 1,445 $ 3,065 $ 3,868

They've run some profits, but it should be kept in mind that they're A) Tax-exempt, B) Hold a monopoly over first-class mail delivery & mailbox access.

In other words, even with a protected market, no taxes, and favorable cost of capital, they still don't manage that great of financial stability.

10/3/2009 11:44:15 AM

Boone, just posting another generalization. Following your lead.

Quote :

"If you support a public option, you must be a liberal elitist."

besides, dont children want people to take care of the grown up stuff, while they play and do whatever they like? Then if they get in trouble, then turn to the adults to deal with it? its kinda fitting.

And the photoshop is funny, but I cant take credit for it.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2009 12:34:17 PM

part of the reason a gov't option would be more efficient is its ability to lower cost. A large portion of private healtcare costs goes into assessing eligibility. In other words, if we can stop typing to figure out who gets coverage and who doesnt we can lower the costs for everyone

10/3/2009 3:24:44 PM

Because if there is one thing the government is known for, it's saving money.

10/3/2009 3:30:33 PM

in all honesty, if you want to understand why the economics of health care differs from traditional markets (instead of parroting rightwing catchphrases) read Arrow's 1963 piece on the Uncertainty of Health Care economics. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf its old but still relevant

10/3/2009 3:38:08 PM

Quote :

"part of the reason a gov't option would be more efficient is its ability to lower cost. A large portion of private healtcare costs goes into assessing eligibility. In other words, if we can stop typing to figure out who gets coverage and who doesnt we can lower the costs for everyone"

Really? Then explain why in the Maine system the costs have skyrocketed since they implemented your idea? How has that not lowered costs? Why does the average 30yo male in main have a monthly premium of $762 while in bordering NH it's just $250?

10/3/2009 8:45:36 PM

^^ Even if the economics are significantly different, it does not follow that government involvement, management and payment is the optimal or indeed even a desirable solution. Our government barely manages to provide adequate health care to our armed forces and veterans, two groups of people who of all the people in the country have claim to government provided care. Yet just a few months ago, our president was talking about offloading that care to private resources and insurance.

10/3/2009 10:58:10 PM

I hope we don't get any kind of health reform. as a nation we don't deserve it yet.

10/4/2009 2:15:06 AM

Yes, because an opposition to a massive overhaul in the level of government involvement in our health care is clearly an opposition to reform in the health care industry. There are clearly no possible solutions to the problems that exist in the industry except the government stepping in and paying for it all.

This is exactly why I don't want government involvement increased, because the moment you make something about politics, you can no longer have a reasonable discussion about the topic without some damned idiot foaming off at the mouth about how his opponents are neo-nazi heartless bastards who hate poor people and minority children.

10/4/2009 8:36:44 AM

Quote :

"Because if there is one thing the government is known for, it's saving money. "

no joke. Amazing how blind people are to this thing. Sheep.

10/4/2009 9:51:42 AM