mRx

c4aQCiRjvZY

I like Nessa's idea of a yearly election.

Hell, Walmart gives you 90 days to change your mind on a decision, why does the government make you wait 4 years?

I sat next to a pretty huge guy on an O'hare to Portland leg.

He had a roll between his armpit and waist that spilled over onto my side and I ended up using it as a handrail; it was quite comfy.

Anybody notice that in the beginning when it shows the Colonel's boots and then the camera pans up--he has his gun and holster on backwards!

I don't know if it was purposeful or if Cameron really is a tree-huggin' Libby who know's nothing about firearms.

Other than that I enjoyed the movie.

And the GOP wonders why they're being intellectually marginalized...

Well, well, well first let me start by saying people do not know the regulations of the United States Army should not even be commenting on the situation. A single parent within the Army must have a family care plan!

What if the FCP falls through, and a guardian is unavailable? If SPC Hutchinson seeks counsel from superiors and "foster care" is the only viable option her management can provide...

Then I'd say ineffective leadership is to blame for her decision to abandon the deployment, no?

By Lew Rockwell

Al may become the first man to rip-off a cool billion through government carbon tyranny. When a man becomes rich in the market, it is because he has been highly successful in serving consumers. When a hereditary member of the power elite like Gore becomes even richer through the state, it means he has been very successful in pushing the faces of consumers into the mud. He promotes climate lies and then poverty-producing state intervention because of the lies, and then makes big bucks from special deals with companies he helped enrich through the state. What a monster.

sorry matt, but you are trying too hard to be right.

i have that stuff in my house and if i don't use it all, it will likely remain in my house for years. in my experience, most people are lazy to throw away medication.

30-year old Hollywood stars don't go usually go into full cardiac arrest unexpectedly without drugs being somehow involved.

And mixing benzos and opiates just happens to be a sure way to flatline, DEDixon.

We'll see what the toxicology shows, though...

A shiny nickle says her toxicology report contains one or both of the following words:

- alprazolam

- oxycodone

I wasn't far off. Looks like clonazepam/lorazepam and hydrocodone were found at her home...

A shiny nickle says her toxicology report contains one or both of the following words:

- alprazolam

- oxycodone

I was at a Muay Thai Boxing match (USA vs. Aussie) 3 weeks ago, and being the only American, I decided to jerk my hand in the air to the thunderous "Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi" call of the 100-plus Nationalistic Aussies in attendance while they cheered their boxer.

I'm really lucky and grateful those Aussies were all рussies...

My brother's ex was sexually assaulted by a Marine...

Happy B-day USMC!

"Take me to the Brig. I want to see the "real Marines". "

Major General Chesty Puller, USMC - while on a Battalion inspection.

What cannot be obtained by consent must be obtained by force!

Semper Fidelis!

My brother's ex was sexually assaulted by a Marine...

Happy B-day USMC!

Kaydee puts the opinion of communist China above that of the American government. That's somewhat comic.

The communists in Beijing are bigger capitalists than our current leadership in Washington.

The rise of China is a direct slap in the face (pwnage actually) for every 'no government spend' / 'zero tax' / 'keep the government out of it' repub.

Total garbage, Booyah.

The rise of China is directly attributed to their loosening of government control by the Xiaoping policies of the late '70's onward.

The evidence is irrefutable.

Nevertheless, as I've already stated, the problem is not insurance, it's health care. My aim was never to make a case defending private insurance, but merely illustrate that it doesn't matter who pays. The costs are astronomical, whether payed by all Americans collectively, or separately via individual plans. Therefore, high hopes of a public plan making health care cheaper are lost.

First off, I cited the per enrollee cost growth above. That's a pretty good indicator of cost containment - since it considers only the actual outlays - and Medicare while not performing well outperformed the private insurance impressively.

OK, I see what you mean. If we're looking at the same data, (Chart 1-7, PP. 9) there appears to be some issues that would make it more difficult to come to the conclusion that Medicare outperforms PHI, as you can see by reading the bullets below the chart.

Actually, looking at that data and the verbiage around it, I noticed that the same conclusion was made there (pg. just under the chart):

• Differences appear to be more pronounced since 1985, when Medicare began introducing the prospective payment system for hospital inpatient services. Some analysts believe that since the mid-1980s, Medicare has had greater success at containing cost growth than private payers by using its larger purchasing power. Others maintain that relative to the 1970s, benefits offered by private insurers have expanded and cost-sharing requirements declined. In addition, enrollment in managed care plans grew during the 1990s. These factors make the comparison problematic, since Medicare’s benefits changed little over the same period.

This is why I say that the government has been more effective controlling cost growth than PHI.

I've added emphasis to the particular points that I was referring to regarding the difficulty of coming to such a conclusion.

As I've said already though, insurance (or who pays for health care) is not the real problem.

...we have more regulation in our health care industry than any country in the world.

Says who? You keep repeating this claim and I must admit that I find this hard to believe.

OK, you're really taking me out of context if your expecting quantified comparisons of per-word health care regulation among countries determining who has the most. You know as well as I do that there is no data available to prove or disprove this. But that's not--and never was--my point. Furthermore, even if I could prove that there are more regulatory agencies in the US (which I probably could), it wouldn't be accurate proof to blame regulation as the problem, would it?

My point--that there is a coercive monopoly enforced by regulation strangling our health care industry, forcing prices up, and unaffected by who pays-- is well-proven, however. A look at the history of the AMA (I posted a great article on this topic, which you seemed to agree with) seems to be solid intent for monopoly, while the fact that US health care is the most expensive in the world is proof that such a monopoly exists.

My main intention of getting in this debate was to prove that costs are rising, irregardless of payer as evident by actuarial data from the Medicare trustee board and rising private premiums; not to get into a pissing match about PHI/Medicare comparisons in which arriving at logical conclusions are problematic (to say the least).

I know this topic is over 10 days old, but I'm out of the US, and internet is not always available.

You may be forgetting the crucial fact that Medicare is payed for by everyone (155,500,000 people) and provided to only a certain group (45,000,000 people.) Excluding the premiums Medicare charges to it's recipients, over 3 people are funding 1 person to be on Medicare, and it's still unsustainable.

A system that takes funding from 3 and provides to 1 can never be considered cost-effective. It also can never be considered more cost-effective than 1 for 1 private insurance (no matter how horrible and costly they are), because at least two-thirds of those funding Medicare receive a cost, but no effect.

Nevertheless, as I've already stated, the problem is not insurance, it's health care. My aim was never to make a case defending private insurance, but merely illustrate that it doesn't matter who pays. The costs are astronomical, whether payed by all Americans collectively, or separately via individual plans. Therefore, high hopes of a public plan making health care cheaper are lost.

First off, I cited the per enrollee cost growth above. That's a pretty good indicator of cost containment - since it considers only the actual outlays - and Medicare while not performing well outperformed the private insurance impressively.

OK, I see what you mean. If we're looking at the same data, (Chart 1-7, PP. 9) there appears to be some issues that would make it more difficult to come to the conclusion that Medicare outperforms PHI, as you can see by reading the bullets below the chart.

There is no doubt about it though; costs are rising, and have for both public and private systems.

To be honest, I would be all for a public option provided the bill included the abolition of the entire regulation myriad that has monopolized the US health industry. As you've already noted, we are at or near the bottom globally, yet we have more regulation in our health care industry than any country in the world.

It hasn't done us much good, but huge corporations, bureaucracies, and politicians have sure profited nicely from it.

But I'm not holding my breath for such meaningful action to happen in my lifetime...

You may be forgetting the crucial fact that Medicare is payed for by everyone (155,500,000 people) and provided to only a certain group (45,000,000 people.) Excluding the premiums Medicare charges to it's recipients, over 3 people are funding 1 person to be on Medicare, and it's still unsustainable.

A system that takes funding from 3 and provides to 1 can never be considered cost-effective. It also can never be considered more cost-effective than 1 for 1 private insurance (no matter how horrible and costly they are), because at least two-thirds of those funding Medicare receive a cost, but no effect.

Matt, a pay as you go system is sustainable when the coffers are not tapped into and taxes are adjusted as necessary. All insurance works on the premise that some will use the service more than others. You won't find one single private insurance fund that pays out a 1:1 ratio.

I was not referring to a "pay out" ratio, Steven. Insurance provides coverage; "pay outs", as you alluded to, are an uncertainty, and not equal. If it were equal, it wouldn't be insurance in any sense of the word. There must be a precedent of uncertainty about the future for any insurance to take place. A situation where there is a 1:1 ratio implies the future is known, therefore negating the need to insure oneself against anything.

Anyways, I pay for Medicare and receive no insurance coverage against uncertainty. That's what I was referring to...

You may be forgetting the crucial fact that Medicare is payed for by everyone (155,500,000 people) and provided to only a certain group (45,000,000 people.) Excluding the premiums Medicare charges to it's recipients, over 3 people are funding 1 person to be on Medicare, and it's still unsustainable.

A system that takes funding from 3 and provides to 1 can never be considered cost-effective. It also can never be considered more cost-effective than 1 for 1 private insurance (no matter how horrible and costly they are), because at least two-thirds of those funding Medicare receive a cost, but no effect.

Nevertheless, as I've already stated, the problem is not insurance, it's health care. My aim was never to make a case defending private insurance, but merely illustrate that it doesn't matter who pays. The costs are astronomical, whether payed by all Americans collectively, or separately via individual plans. Therefore, high hopes of a public plan making health care cheaper are lost.

Here's the short version:

The US government has proven that they are no better at managing US health care costs than private insurance (as evident by the statistical summary provided by the board of trustees who manage Medicare funds: (here).

Matt, Medicare is proven more efficient than private insurance.

If rising premiums were endemic to private insurance companies, then why does the Medicare Board of Trustees report on the third consecutive "Medicare funding warning"? Why would the HI trust fund, for which we all contribute, be exhausted by 2017? Why would an immediate and 75-year long 134% Medicare tax increase be necessary to bring about balance for Medicare? (I'm not making any of this up, I assure you. It's all right here.)

The truth is, Medicare is in no better shape to cover these monopolized costs than private insurers. Private insurers must raise premiums, and Medicare must raise taxes. The effect is the same.

Insurance is not the problem; Health care is. This isn't ideology or theory. These are facts. The condition of Medicare is proof.

Just realized what I wrote was pretty long-winded. Lest my efforts to articulate my point be in vain...

Here's the short version:

The US government has proven that they are no better at managing US health care costs than private insurance (as evident by the statistical summary provided by the board of trustees who manage Medicare funds: (here).

Therefore, comparisons of government-run health systems of foreign countries to the system of the US are entirely moot.

There is a core problem with the cost of health care in the US. The exorbitant cost of health care can only be logically blamed on the regulations that have monopolized the US medical industry.

Abolishing the regulations, commissions, administrations, bureaus, associations, and legislative acts that control the supply and price of health care is the only real way to lower the costs of health care. Such a restrictive regulatory body exists in no other health care system in the world. This correctly accounts for why health care is far cheaper in countries with and without government-provided health care/insurance alike; because the health care industries of those countries are not monopolized like that of the US.

The fact of the matter is that there is ample evidence both within the US as well as in other comparable countries that government works better than private for profit enterprise in creating effective and efficient ehalth care systems. Again, Medicare outranks private insurance in service, coverage and cost. The health care systems of comparable countries outrank the US system in effectiveness, efficiency and overall health outcomes. The only item where we rank way on top is cost. Nothing to be proud of.

The evidence that government does a better job of organizing health care is on the table. Your "conclusions" are based on ideology rather than reality.

You have no evidence to support your claim that the government can create and maintain cost-effective health care systems.

Medicare--the example of your claim--is insolvent. Medicare, as you must know, is financed through taxes that are deposited into a HI Trust Fund. The funds are then invested into non-marketable government securities that collect interest. We Americans make non-voluntary contributions to this trust fund monthly, and we are in turn to believe that at age 65 we can be sustained on our matured contributions in the trust fund. This trust fund is the funding source of Medicare. As with any trust fund, they are managed by trustee(s). In the US, the Board of Trustees is required, by law, to provide statistics to the public. Here's what the Board of Trustees had to say this year:

As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues.

This means that the marvelous government Medicare system that is more cost-effective than private insurance has the problem of expenditures exceeding revenues (translated: losses). So, how will these losses be made up?

The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets.

Oh, lovely. So current contributors are now paying current beneficiaries, instead of investing into their own future benefit (Note: we put a man in prison for 150 years for running a similar system). Oh, it get's better:

Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017

This well-organized system that the government has so thoughtfully given us is starting to sound like it's consuming itself (going bankrupt). When a private business is confronted with such a situation where revenue cannot cover expenditures, they must scramble to liquidate assets to pay obligations. But, fear not, the government will not be selling off any Federal buildings.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the third consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays

So, they will just roll the losses of the efficient Medicare into the nearly $2 trillion dollar general deficit, which will in turn need to be paid for (that means printing more paper money, lest President Obama reneges on his tax pledge).

It's easy to see now that a public option, government-financed/organized health care is not more efficient than private insurance; They merely have the luxury of consistently spending more than they take in, and confiscating wealth produced in America if necessary. Private businesses are not permitted by law to steal in order to stay afloat.

Either way, private insurance is not so private at all. Consider this article describing some of the regulations that have led to the outrageous premiums. The way our health insurance market operates (heavily regulated/controlled) can easily be contrasted with the way our auto insurance market operates (relatively freely). If you crash your car into a tree, and don't have insurance, you cannot purchase auto insurance thereafter to pay for the damages. But, with health insurance, the government has mandated that private insurers accept such "pre-existing" conditions. With auto insurance, a driver who's been in no accidents will have much lower premiums than a driver with many accidents. Your premiums are dictated by your "risk pool". But, with health insurance, the government has mandated regulations that don't allow insurers to charge based on risk-potential, so "wreckless drivers" and "safe drivers" are in the same community pool.

The linked article does a better job explaining the regulation imposed upon health insurers which help explain the outrageous premiums, but the bigger issue is the cost of what is being insured; health care. In my last post, I detailed the monopolistic traits of the health care industry. This is the true problem with our health care system.

When industry-wide costs are high, changing the payer of these costs (public option, nationalization) does nothing to lower those costs.

Address the costs of health care by shedding the web of regulation that restricts supply and monopolizes profits for the health and Pharm industry, and prices will fall.

Otherwise, we are doomed to the fate described by the Board of Trustees...

And as usual, Booyah touts the rationed healthcare systems of European countries as grandiose. Well, I will counter with the fact that I'm living in SE Asia, where there is no Medicare/Medicade, HMO's, and little health insurance, yet I can see a doctor today if I want for less than $20 dollars/consultation. Medication is extremely inexpensive, as patent laws don't prevail. A medication I was prescribed in the US for an infection, which was covered by my health insurance cost over $150 dollars. I found the same thing available here for about $8.

Brother Matt,

If you are suggesting that the insurance industry itself is the problem and the unregulated, often unjustified costs of care, I will listen to your argument. I am fed up with them myself. However, we can't just scrap the whole industry. Right now are just try to make some minor tweaks and changes and the whole country is up and arms. Imagine if we just said, F* the whole thing... and just didn't have insurance at alll??

AlHayatZween,

Despite having the appearance of an unregulated healthcare industry, we in fact have the most heavily regulated healthcare industry in the world.

There are more rules, laws, regulations, associations, commissions, bureaus, administrations, oversight/enforcement agencies, and legislative acts in health care than any country on earth. If regulation made an industry better, America would have the highest quality and lowest priced health care in the world--no doubt about it. Proponents of more regulation must concede to this fact.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know the intent of all this regulation is for our "own safety". But you must look at the effect of such regulation.

It's created the greatest industry-wide coercive monopoly in history. The HHS, AMA, JCAHO, AHRQ, etc. all work in effect to limit freedom in the health care industry. Of course, these laws and regulations are passed under the auspices of "public safety", but their true intent is far more insidious. (Prime example: the AMA, which I posted a great article about their history here)

Massive barriers to entry exist in health care. The AMA determines how many students are permitted to medical school, while Federal and State medical boards determine who can practice as a doctor. Massive subsidy agencies (Medicare) ensure prices aren't affected. HMO's ensure monopolization for insurance agencies. (Hell, most doctors don't accept cash-paying customers anymore). As more and more baby-boomers reach Medicare-age, the problem will only get worse... Medicare liabilities are pushing towards $30 trillion (and we thought the Madoff Ponzi was huge).

Nationalizing our industry, creating a single-payer system, or public-option does nothing to address the real problem: That the government has teamed with the health care industry to form the most elaborate coercive monopoly in history. But, the politicians say: "It's for our own good.", while their campaign coffers swell with monopoly prices.

The only solution that will move us towards the right direction is freedom. There is a crying demand for health care, but the doors are held shut by the regulation myriad.

But, again it's all "for our own good".

Considering the price of many other products are quite comparable to those of the US, how do you account for this anomaly that shatters your thesis that government is God?

i would account for this anomaly by saying that the industry has become a racket here. The costs for health care, drugs that have been around for years, and standard procedures, have skyrocketed because of simple greed and corporate thievery... enabled by government

Using simplistic analogies to illustrate a whole raft of complex problems is often doomed to failure.

The intent of the OP was to reduce the complex situation down to it's structural core, and go logically from there...

It's merely a form of deductive reasoning.

It's rather sad that so many people don't understand the concept of "insurance".

I think this article helps to explain the debacle of "pre-existing" conditions. You cannot insure against something that occurred in the past. Existing legislation compelling insurance companies to do so only raises the costs for all, and forces those in the bottom rungs to drop out (as explained in the OP).

And as usual, Booyah touts the rationed healthcare systems of European countries as grandiose. Well, I will counter with the fact that I'm living in SE Asia, where there is no Medicare/Medicade, HMO's, and little health insurance, yet I can see a doctor today if I want for less than $20 dollars/consultation. Medication is extremely inexpensive, as patent laws don't prevail. A medication I was prescribed in the US for an infection, which was covered by my health insurance cost over $150 dollars. I found the same thing available here for about $8.

Considering the price of many other products are quite comparable to those of the US, how do you account for this anomaly that shatters your thesis that government is God?