Tip of the week: Don't EVER get sick in Irvine!

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml





The US spent 2T on health care in 2005, at a clip outpacing inflation (7%).





From that site (bipartisan)





"In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200 (3)."





Your $500 from stopping the war in Iraq wouldn't count for much ...





If we were to stop spending on an army altogether and divert it to health care, we would account for 5%, perhaps slightly more, of that.





Senator's salaries are a drop in the bucket.





I'm not trying to take apart your argument, I think we agree there needs to be UHC, but from the numbers it's either we stop spending altogether and funnel our GDP into nationalized health care or we raise taxes.
 
By Michael B. Marois

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- California moved a step closer to

passing a $14 billion plan supported by Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger to expand health care to the state's uninsured by

charging employers a fee and raising taxes on cigarettes.

The state Assembly, controlled by Democrats, passed the

bill yesterday in a 45-31 vote. It would require businesses to

spend as much as 6.5 percent of payroll costs on health care for

workers or pay as much into a state program. It also would raise

the tax on a pack of cigarettes by at least $1.50 from the

current 87 cents and force all residents to buy insurance if

they can afford it.

The measure now heads to the Senate. If passed there, it

still needs approval by voters in November. Senate President Pro

Tem Don Perata, once a supporter of the proposal, said he will

wait to call a vote until next year so he can determine how it

might affect state finances. Schwarzenegger said on Dec. 14 that

California has a $14 billion deficit.

``I'm very concerned about the projected $14 billion budget

deficit, its impact on existing state health programs and how

this relates to our efforts to improve health-care coverage for

Californians,'' Perata said yesterday.

If the plan wins final approval, California would join

Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont in passing laws to expand

health care to the uninsured. Maryland in 2006 became the first

state to require large companies of more than 10,000 workers to

pay a set amount for employee health-care benefits. Employers

successfully fought the law in federal court.



One Step Closer



Schwarzenegger, a Republican, first proposed the plan in

January. He and Democrats had been at odds over how to finance

it. He had opposed raising taxes and didn't want businesses to

pay any more than 4 percent of payroll.

``This brings us one step closer to making health care a

right afforded to everybody in this state, and not just a

privilege afforded to those with deep pockets,'' Speaker of the

Assembly Fabian Nunez, a Los Angeles Democrat, said yesterday.

The bill the Assembly passed also doesn't cover all of the

estimated 5.4 million uninsured, something Schwarzenegger had

wanted. Instead, it provides funding for about 70 percent of

those without coverage.

Schwarzenegger and Nunez both said the plan would pay for

itself and wouldn't require money from the state's general fund.

``This reform is the best thing we could do right now for

the California economy and our state budget, because it is self-

financing,'' Schwarzenegger told reporters in the state capitol

after the vote yesterday. ``It takes nothing from our general

fund and it pumps billions into our economy.''



Business Costs



The plan would require businesses -- depending upon their

size -- to spend between 1 percent and 6.5 percent of payroll

costs on health care or pay the same amount into a state

insurance fund. Hospitals would pay 4 percent of their profits

into the pool. The plan also counts on $4.6 billion a year in

additional federal funds.

Under the plan, people who aren't offered insurance from

their employers would be required to buy coverage through a

state-run pool. If they can't afford the coverage, they would

earn state subsidies and tax breaks.

Lawmakers must still draft the legislation putting the

cigarette tax increase on the November ballot because that must

be done through a separate bill.

California voters last year rejected a ballot measure

calling for a $2.60 per-pack tax increase on cigarettes after

tobacco companies such as Altria Group Inc., parent of Philip

Morris and the biggest cigarette maker, and Reynolds American

Inc., parent of the second-largest U.S. cigarette producer,

financed an $80 million opposition campaign.
 
earthbm:

whatever, I did go to the drugstore in Paris and bought antibiotics there. Did they relax the rules on that just for the duration of my visit there? Don't think so.

I think it is a pointless discussion, but accusing someone of lying without any evidence to back it up is just un-American. Some food for thought for you if you want to move to the U.S. You are not in the Soviet Union anymore, so you are going to be very unhappy here if you don't change that kind of attitude. I noticed that honesty is one of the main qualities of American people. I have been completely honest in every single post I made here, and I guarantee you that most of the people who read my posts had no doubt about it. People here would give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you do lie, it will eventually come out and hurt you big time.

fraychielle: can't resist to add that drops in the bucket make the bucket, right? besides, I would never suggest cutting spending on the Army altogether, otherwise, we are going to be sitting ducks here. I understand that you see the problem, but what is your solution?
 
<p>Does anyone know how to make the font on this smaller? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>December 17, 2007</p>

<p>The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility in Government


by Ron Paul</p>



<p></p>



<p>As the year draws to a close, the battle over spending in Washington is heating up. The Democrats want to expand government healthcare, while the President has vetoed the second attempt to expand SCHIP.</p>

<p>The latest version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program would have expanded the entitlement program and raised just as the earlier version did and the President showed fiscal restraint with his veto.</p>

<p>Reducing our entitlement programs here at home is not against saving the children, as the rhetoric goes, it is about saving the country's economy. The fact is we have huge trade imbalances, massive deficits, and a $9 trillion national, which balloons to $60 trillion if unfunded future liabilities in social security and other promises we have made to Americans are included.</p>

<p>We are at a crucial point in history right now. We must think very carefully about our next moves. There is coming a time, if we continue on this path, when all that our tax dollars and government revenues will be able to do is pay interest on the mountain of we have compiled in the past few decades. That will mean no government programs or services of any kind will be funded, yet future generations of Americans will still struggle under a crushing tax burden with nothing to show for it. That is why fiscal restraint and common sense with the are so vitally important in government.</p>

<p>The difference now is that our printing presses at the Federal Reserve are getting worn out as we have expanded our money supply to the breaking point with yet another rate cut this week. As the dollar falls, it is losing its reserve currency status as many countries are shifting to the Euro or the Chinese yuan or other currencies. The more that trend continues, the weaker we become on the world stage. Those foreign governments and entities that enabled us to spend so much for so long are wearing thin and cutting us off.</p>

<p>The truth is our enemies won't need a nuclear weapon to harm us if we keep spending phantom dollars at the current rate. In fact, they won't need to do anything but sit back and watch as we spend ourselves into oblivion. Historically, empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the direction we are headed. We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late.</p>

<p>I applaud the President for his veto of the SCHIP expansion bill. It is a step in the right direction. But it is just one small step. What our economy needs right now is to go full gallop away from the and spend policies that have gotten us into this mess.</p>

<p>Dr. Ron Paul </p>

<p> </p>
 
I don't quite understand the Ron Paul love fest on this board. It seems to me that a bit of government regulation and oversight would have been helpful in moderating this bubble. Libertarianism certainly is a feel good philosophy in certain application... who doesn't want to be left alone to do his thing. But when the rubber meets the road, it's a bad idea. Not all of us lives in isolated pockets of Idaho. We do need the government to regulate pollution, demand transparency in the financial markets, regulate insurance industries, etc. And going back to the gold based monetary policy is a crackpot idea.
 
<p><em>"It seems to me that a bit of government regulation and oversight would have been helpful in moderating this bubble."</em></p>

<p>Government regulation, via the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking is what created the extreme of this problem. There will always be financial cycles, but trying to manipulate those cycles causes extremes.</p>

<p><em>"And going back to the gold based monetary policy is a crackpot idea."</em></p>

<p>Any evidence for this view? Have you read about the history of all the various fiat currencies? Have you read about the history of using gold as money? Or is it different this time? You seem to know better than Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, ...</p>
 
<em>"All previous attempts to base money solely on intangibles such as credit or government edict or fiat have ended in inflationary panic and disaster."</em> <strong>Winston Churchill</strong>
 
<p>Back to medicine.</p>

<p>I am sure that there are loads of people, probably the majority of customers, who like confident drs, who are reassured by this. It helps the placebo effect, which is not to be sneered at.</p>

<p>However, it make me nervous. I am suspicious of anybody with too much confidence.</p>

<p>Also, the fact that drs never seem to look anything up in a book drives me crazy. Even with simple evictions, I continuously check the statutes and my form books to make sure nothing's changed and I'm doing it right. Only people with perfect memory which are few remember all that stuff that is thrown at drs. Also, I think that there is good research that exhausted students of anything don't remember so much as refreshed ones.</p>

<p>My skin doc did look up my weird skin condition and gave me a copy of what she found which fit to a t. Bless her. I could real about 2/3rds of it.</p>

<p>And the fact they run the students ragged shows the teachers and hospitals really care nothing for health, or they'd have some concern for the health of their own people.</p>

<p>In the NYTs today is a small article about how intensive care units haven't even bothered to figure out how to set things up so the patients get enough sleep, which they need lots of to heal. And the food at hospitals--super ugh. Besides being mostly tasteless, I'm pretty sure it's non-nutritious. I read a study that if you cook veggies more than 15 minutes, they lose all their umph, and I've never seen a veggie at a hospital that was not totally overcooked.</p>

<p>There's seldom any natural light.</p>

<p>What I think is important is an emphasis on health. Drs are taught all about sickness, hardly anything about health. </p>

<p>A gov't emphasis on health would be much cheaper than paying docs. Don't get me wrong, some would suffer. But the overall health of the country would benefit.</p>
 
?Any evidence for this view? Have you read about the history of all the various fiat currencies? Have you read about the history of using gold as money? Or is it different this time? You seem to know better than Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, ...?



Sorry, I don?t see your point. You are saying because Jefferson, Franklin, etc were in favor of gold standard, I should be too? Jefferson, owned slaves, does that mean I should agree with him? Do you think slavery is a good idea? Gold standard had validity within their time frame. You bring those people to the present age and their perspective would certainly change. For every current economist in favor of gold standard, there are a hundred who see it as highly impractical and counterproductive



Have you read about the history of all the various fiat currencies? I doubt it.



?Government regulation, via the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking is what created the extreme of this problem. There will always be financial cycles, but trying to manipulate those cycles causes extremes.?



This is partly true. On the other hand, rampant abuse of the cheap available credit may have had a greater effect on the bubble than the low cost of borrowing. From the late 80?s to the early 90?s when the mortgage rate dropped from the high teens to upper single digits, there was not a meteoric bubble then as there is today.
 
lawyerliz,



I must say the vast majority of times, it's hands down. Doctors know best. But there are a few times where I have to say the patients might know more about his or her body. And that doctors should be open minded and stop for a second to listen.



For example, there are certain food that affect my health. I know this for a fact because I have tried certain foods and it freak the hell out of my skin condition. Now, of course, I said certain foods "affect" and not cure. But when I share this with my doctor. He just rolls his eyes and smirk.
 
Discounting the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves is a strawman argument. Since he wrote much of The Constitution, maybe we should consider it dated no longer pertinent. No, I am not saying just because they knew a gold standard was better than fiat currency, you should also, but it should give you pause to research and think, rather than just spout hyperbole.<p>


<i>" Gold standard had validity within their time frame."</i> Why? What difference does the time frame make? Do you know what money is? Do you know what fiat currency is? Why would time make any difference? If you study the history of money, you will see time makes no difference and our own fiat currency has done rather poorly compare to others, and performs miserably compared to gold.<p>


<i>"You bring those people to the present age and their perspective would certainly change."</i> No, it wouldn't. They experienced both and that is why they knew a gold based monetary system was better than fiat currency. You need to read what they wrote before you project your beliefs.<p>


I have read of the history of fiat currencies and gold based monetary systems. Not all, and it was a mistake to include the word "all", but I do know of what I write.<p>


<i>" rampant abuse of the cheap available credit may have had a greater effect on the bubble than the low cost of borrowing."</i> Again, read some history and you will see that cheap credit is next to impossible with a precious metal monetary system, whereas with a fiat currency, the currency is debt and only lasts as long as credit expands.<p>


Are you serious, there was no real estate bubble in the 80s?
 
I read an interesting fact the other Day....



The NHS (Britains' National Health Service) is the world's largest, centralised health service, and the world's third largest employer after the Chinese army and the Indian railways.
 
reason,

you really need to get a new doctor. skin conditions ARE often affected by what you eat. If your doctor smirks when you tell him that, he is not doing you any favors. We have friends with a new baby with really bad eczema. Turns out he was allergic to some of the things the mom was eating, and passing to him via breast milk. Her allergist diagnosed the problem, and once she changed her diet, the baby's skin cleared right up.



lawyerliz,

I agree with most of what you said. But I wonder where you get the impression that doctors never look anything up in a book? Is it because they don't do it during a visit? I would think that most service providers, whether it be a doctor, lawyer or plumber, would not inspire a lot of confidence if they were to refer to a book or the internet right in front of a client. Most of my friends who are doctors actually carry around multiple medical references on their Palm or Clio, for easy lookup of drug dosages, counteractions, etc.



"A gov't emphasis on health would be much cheaper than paying docs. Don't get me wrong, some would suffer. But the overall health of the country would benefit."



I totally agree, but I would also add "than paying docs, or paying for drugs." My take is that its easier for people to take anti-cholesterol drugs, anti-depressants, anti-whatever, instead of actually changing their lifestyle. And regular dosages of drugs are a much higher cost than your typical doctor visit.
 
Alright awgee, I?ll play, as long as it doesn?t get personal.



?Discounting the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves is a strawman argument. Since he wrote much of The Constitution, maybe we should consider it dated no longer pertinent. No, I am not saying just because they knew a gold standard was better than fiat currency, you should also, but it should give you pause to research and think, rather than just spout hyperbole.?



No, I was not discounting the wisdom of Jefferson because he owned slaves. I was merely asking a rhetorical question to make a point. In fact, naming three smart famous dead people from centuries ago that agree with you on a issue is a straw man argument. You can find three smart people to agree on just about anything. There are thousands of smart, live people who would disagree you.





? If you study the history of money, you will see time makes no difference and our own fiat currency has done rather poorly compare to others, and performs miserably compared to gold.?



To what ?others? are you comparing to? Fiat currency performs miserably compared to gold? What the heck are you talking about? Perhaps you are referring to our gold standard in the late 19th and early 20th century when US did have pretty spectacular economic growth and output? But that was also the dawn of Industrial age, a paradigm shifting event. Gold standard probably had little to do with that era?s success. Really, if it were so simple, all we had to do was switch to gold standard and there would be this golden era again, there would be a rush to the gold standard door. Last I checked there was no significant economy based on the gold standard.



?Again, read some history and you will see that cheap credit is next to impossible with a precious metal monetary system, whereas with a fiat currency, the currency is debt and only lasts as long as credit expands.?



You missed my point completely. Go back and read it again.



? Are you serious, there was no real estate bubble in the 80s??



Again go back and read what I said. In the late 80?s and early 90?s, when interest rate was dropping like a rock, housing prices went right down along for the ride.



In theory, gold standard has lots of merits. But Ron Paul?s idea of changing the US back to it is, in my opinion, crackpot. Even if he is elected as the President of US it won?t happen. Even if both houses of congress were filled with nothing but libertarians, it won?t happen. Rest of the world would not go along with it.
 
Ok, I'll bite. I checked out the article - certainly it shows the potential for abuse of the prescription system. I fail to see how that "proves the point" about the entire system itself. What exactly would be the alternative to the prescription system for controlled substances like narcotics (which is what the article is about)? At some point, someone has to make the decision to allow someone else to purchase a dangerous or possibly addictive substance, unless you are suggesting that we leave it up to the purchaser. If it's not a trained medical professional, is it the government? A store clerk paid minimum wage? You can always find bad apples in any profession; it doesn't mean the system is broken. I read stories of patent-trolling lawyers all the time, but that doesn't make me think we should do away with patents or lawyers.



My wife gets a monthly newsletter from the CA Medical Board. Each month, the Board lists by NAME, city and specialty those doctors that have had their licenses suspended or revoked, and the underlying cause. This includes reasons such as prescribing drugs illegally or without sufficient reason, as well as negligence, substance abuse, criminal convictions, etc. Can you think of another profession that calls out its members publicly like that? Perhaps lawyers have something similar through the CA Bar, I wouldn't be surprised if it were so. All I know is that that level of accountability is much higher than in other professions I am familar with.
 
Oh please don't get me started on lawyers and bad apples. As a lawyer myself, I am familiar with tons of stories about ambulance chasers and other representatives of our noble profession. Maybe I'll start a thread on that one of those days.

And you are right, lawyers have a similar system, Cal. Bar Journal (published by Cal. bar) contains info about reprimands and suspensions. By the way, if you ever need to hire a lawyer, don't be lazy and go to calbar.org and do an attorney search and check his/her public record. One time an opposing counsel on one of our cases was a convicted felon not less.

About my point: I guess you are right that I'm taking that to the extreme by suggesting that we leave that decision to a purchaser. Even though we do have a prescription system now, people still find ways to get around that. Besides, when something is lying out there in the open available any time you want, it becomes so much less attractive. What if we allowed those narcotics to be sold w/t prescription? Do you think the entire population would run to the drugstores to get them? I wouldn't. And for those who would, well, I do believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top