Health Care

[Heylel Teomim]

A little more than half of America voted for Obama. What's he supposed to do, check the voting record of every person involved in every decision he has to make? About half the time, the right will scream because he's "punishing those who voted against him", and about half the time he'll be "helping out his cronies".

Not everything is tied to politics.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Sunder

I know you're a smarter guy than this. Are you just willfully missing the part of Obama's speeches where he says we have to get health care costs under control also?

I'm talking about what the federal government pays for health care for the nation compared to the service we are getting for it, not individuals paying for health care.

But while we're at it, yes, I know all about his speeches. So far, what policy proposals have resulted from his speeches? He is going to need something bigger than electronic medical records to cut health care costs by a significant amount.

[chaos]

And in other news, to no one's surprise, the Iranian election commission is claiming that Ahmadinejad is winning the election. Moussavi claimed victory early, and it was immediately followed up with claims that Ahmadinejad was winning.

Not sure if a Moussavi victory would really chagne the situation between Iran and us. It would be nice, oh well. We will need another war in a few years anyway.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Arative

Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend

This will be interesting if the Republicans can gain traction with it.

Edit to add link about health care tax surchage
House health panel chair: Tax surcharge likely

So more than likely to pay for the health care fix, our income taxes are going to go up.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see all the people who railed on bush for firing AGs (who are more directly under the president's authority) for supposedly "political" reasons... And now this IG (which is a position reporting to congress and the president and supposed to be protected from "political use") gets fired after exposing a lot of waste at a charity that gets government funds (take a guess the political party of the Mayor of that town and apparent founder of said charity...)

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

About half the time, the right will scream because he's "punishing those who voted against him", and about half the time he'll be "helping out his cronies".

Not everything is tied to politics.

You mean like his latest batch of ambassador appointments... ( My Way News - Obama taps more big donors for ambassadorships ) I love how he's changing the environment of "pay to play" politics...

[Araxen]

Medical Bills Cause Most Bankruptcies - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

This is one of the many reasons why we need to ditch the "for profit" medical system in this country.

[AladainAF]

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive - Telegraph

I wonder if New Orleans 9th Ward is on the list of places to be bulldozed by the Obama administration. I mean, it fits all the criteria. Why not?

[MrSpitz]

The bankruptcy data is kind of funny. Notice how even in the article, they list it by 'illnesses leaving the highest out of pocket expense' and not 'the most common conditions that induce bankruptcy'.

But honestly, I say this only in response to Araxen.
1. If you have serious neurological problems, like MS, or are diagnosed as epileptic (2+ confirmed seizures, and not necesarily the type of seizure you think of) you are going to go bankrupt no matter what. You can't work, you can't drive, you are permanently disabled. People spend a lot of money on MS treatments that are not covered because there is no hope with the diagnosis, and if you declare bankruptcy it doesn't really matter in that case.

For profit, or not for profit, these people are going to be bankrupt or at the mercy of public welfare.

2. Diabetes. I think it is a shame diabetics have such high costs, but the majority of diabetics in this country are not Type I, they are Type II (somewhere between 80 and 95% depending on the data you use). Type II diabetes is actually quite easily prevented, and even when diagnosed you can control your weight and maintain an activity level to keep the progression very, very slow. So while it is a shame to buy continuous insulin and other medications depending on the subtype, why isn't the onus on fighting obesity/ prevention? This is not catching a virus, and this is not Type I diabetes where the body is destroying its own insulin source.

So again, profit or non profit, you will have outrageous insulin and other drug costs for a condition that could easily be prevented or dealt with otherwise (Type I diabetics, however, are just in an awful position. And its one of those very tricky situations, where you have a life you can keep alive, but requires constant drugs, constant doctor visits, and after 40 almost always has complications leading amputations, heart problems due to vasculature abnormalities, and kidney donation needs. If someone later in life with Type I diabetes opts for a transplant over dialysis, it could push them in bankruptcy. Is it more fair to have their costs paid for by everyone else on the plan? Well, diabetes is in my family, so I would say yes. But I have to acknowledge one family member probably has the health care expenditures of maybe forty or fifty of you, and that is low balling it. It's a tough issue).

5. Heart Disease: Pretty much same as diabetes, majority of cases could be prevented with a different lifestyle, although I'll say at least 1/5th of them could not be (I don't know much about cardiac other than that cancer recently overtook heart disease as the leading cause of death).



My point is, profit or non-profit, the conditions listed as causing bankruptcy aren't going to get magically cheaper. A diagnosed epileptic usually won't work, a diagnosed MS patient will search for any sliver of hope, but no matter who is offering insurance they will not be alright unless supported by a family or the government. The bills for their drugs will still be in the thousands. The myriad of scans and followup scans won't magically get cheaper. The vast majority of diabetics in this country could be prevented, and even after can be battled with cheap exercise. I feel very little pity toward the preventable cases. As per Type I diabetics, they are always going to cost as much as fifty people. Lifetime supply of insulin, other drugs to control blood pressure, more doctor visits, heart problems due to vascular damage/visits/treatments, and kidney donation are hugely expensive. We could do what other countries do and do vastly less transplants instead of dialysis, but that really limits your life and productivity unless you live right next to a hospital. Heart disease, really preventable.

People are missing the issue completely if they think curbing the administrative costs of private insurance (which are still sizable) will solve this.

[Strifen]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive - Telegraph

I wonder if New Orleans 9th Ward is on the list of places to be bulldozed by the Obama administration. I mean, it fits all the criteria. Why not?

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[Snugglebear]

Originally Posted by Simas

My bad if this was already posted, havent peeped the last couple pages.

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker



Either side of the aisle stuff like this is a problem. Its 8 pages long but its worth the read.

This is talked about in Sharon Brownlee's book about health care costs - Miami might spend $11,000 per medicare recipient, while Kaiser Permanante in California or Mayo in Minnesota spends $5,500. What isn't clear is whether the patients in Miami are sicker and require more treatment, or regional variations in practice cause costs to go up. Brownlee contends that if you have 1000 beds in a hospital, they all get used, and if you have 20 cardiologists in a hospital, you are going to get a lot of expensive angiography that may be unnecessary - she basically claims that in the healthcare market, oversupply CREATES demand. I don't know if I believe it though.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive - Telegraph

I wonder if New Orleans 9th Ward is on the list of places to be bulldozed by the Obama administration. I mean, it fits all the criteria. Why not?

I can seriously see parts of Dayton becoming grasslands once again.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear

she basically claims that in the healthcare market, oversupply CREATES demand. I don't know if I believe it though.

That's how it works for roads... the more you build, the more people drive.

[Rum]

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

A little more than half of America voted for Obama.

what you ment to say is. Obama got alittle over half of the votes of the Americans who voted, which was around 60% voter turnout(the same as 2004).

[Haus]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

I can seriously see parts of Dayton becoming grasslands once again.

There's a massive level of sprawl that happened over the last 20 years north of Dallas. If some of it is returned to nature I won't complain.

[Astrocreep]

my problem with that is , with so many people in danger of losing their homes now, the idea of bulldozing homes and letting nature reclaim the land sounds fucking stupid. you got empty homes on government land? ok assign them to people with bad mortgages and let them stay there til they get back on their feet and allow them to rebuild a community. if not then just give it to the homeless, at least some will work on keeping those places up.


even more worrying is when nature "reclaims" the land what endangered species will take up residence there? if we wanted to develop the land again someday down the road, will the tree huggers cry in their pussies about the stink cockroach thats in danger of becoming extinct if we disrupt that earth.

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

my problem with that is , with so many people in danger of losing their homes now, the idea of bulldozing homes and letting nature reclaim the land sounds fucking stupid. you got empty homes on government land? ok assign them to people with bad mortgages and let them stay there til they get back on their feet and allow them to rebuild a community. if not then just give it to the homeless, at least some will work on keeping those places up.


even more worrying is when nature "reclaims" the land what endangered species will take up residence there? if we wanted to develop the land again someday down the road, will the tree huggers cry in their pussies about the stink cockroach thats in danger of becoming extinct if we disrupt that earth.

With your strange uber-conservative-with-the-occasional-touch-of-empathy-so-long-as-somebody-is-being-fucked mentality, you crack me up. You should have a show on E!. Call it Astrocreep: It's complicated.