Follow this blog:
RSS

Everybody needs health care

By | August 5, 2010, 8:36 AM PDT

There is a simple truth that was left untold in the health care debate, a truth repeated to me often by doctors, insurers, policy wonks, even other reporters, but never emphasized when the political heat was on.

Everybody needs health care.

Not insurance, care. Regular preventive health care.

There’s more scientific evidence for it this week, a study from the Annals of Family Medicine showing that young adults need cholesterol screens, even kids do, to prevent later coronary disease. But only 70% get them.

In a way this is new science, because only in the last 25 years, with the rise of statin drugs, have we had a simple, effective way to combat cholesterol. I didn’t get a serious check until age 45. I nearly died. (I probably cut 10 years off my lifespan anyway.)

It’s not just cholesterol. Obesity starts with youth, obesity rates are rising, young people who aren’t getting regular care are setting themselves up for an early, and very expensive death.

In short, denial kills.

We all need health care because we are surrounded by life, with temptations that can kill us if left untreated. Both our needs and desires carry health risks. Food carries health risks. So does sex. So do our impulses for risk, to work hard, and to just sit around.

Most of us get some form of pediatric care, but those in poverty probably need more than they are getting. More care can create better habits that let poor people earn more and avoid disease later, saving everyone a bundle.

Millions of Americans engage in a health “black out period,” starting around age 20, usually lasting until about 40, and sometimes (if you are uninsured) extending well into middle age.

This costs us all money, and costs you life. This is what science and health experts are telling us, every day. They are practically screaming it.

The continuing campaign against health reform is founded on this denial. Government can’t make us buy health insurance, say the opponents of reform.

What they are also saying is, government can’t make us go to the doctor. It can’t make us listen to lectures to stop smoking, to lose weight, to use a condom, to cut drinking, to exercise, to live right today if we want to live healthy tomorrow.

When they post here — and they post here often — they call it the “nanny state.”

They’re right.

But an annual check-up isn’t just the lecture. It’s also the tests which precede it. This is your blood pressure, your cholesterol count, your blood sugar level. And it’s the offer of help. Here’s a program, a club, a clinic.

Health reform opponents might respond they should be free to sign a waiver. But a waiver won’t work. The medical profession, our entire health system, is based on the ethical premise that you give care.

Sure, an aging, diabetic, poverty line patient won’t get the same care as a middle class man with elevated cholesterol, but the system will try. And it will cost you — through your insurance, or your private payment — a lot more to pay for that old diabetic than the insured guy.

You can’t demand doctors they must watch people die to suit your political ideology.

We know this. The science is clear. Political denial won’t change it. Rejecting or even overthrowing health reform won’t change it.

It will just make the truth more stark, as America’s lifespan falls, and we face a future with ever fewer aging, querulous white folks and a growing army of young, unhealthy, black and brown ones.

Enjoy your tea, my friends. Science says it’s the only thing you’re doing that’s good for you.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Healthcare

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
37
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
health insurance
You should be fined for not having insurance because if you
have an emergency and go to the emergency room, then you do
not have the money for the bill, it gets charged to everyone else.
Get medical insurance for your entire family at the best price from
http://bit.ly/chE6zp By contributing to the pool and doing your
part, overall costs come down. Its like stores that have to charge
more because of all the theft. People go to the hospital and then
not pay, it gets charged to everyone else.
Posted by kameronjo
5th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
Life Expectancy Hits New High of Nearly 78
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081904131.html
Posted by jwaddellpa
5th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
A caveat about "life expectancy" figures
@jwaddellpa

You have to be careful when looking at these life expectancy numbers because they are based on per capita basis. In other words, people are not actually living any longer than 100 years ago, MORE people are living longer only because they didn't die young in large numbers from polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, measles, diptheria, tetanus, flu, et. al.
Posted by twirth5
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
"Single Payer" will solve this.
There. I said it.

I'm one of the few who actually paid for his own insurance from
the day he left his parent's umbrella. Although it was cheap by
today's standards, it certainly wasn't cheap to me at the time.

I vividly recall the annoying conversations I'd have with school
mates who'd complain that we needed universal "free health care"
because private insurance was so expensive. Never mind that
half of them had new car payments twice what I paid for my
insurance, and took far more interesting vacations than I did.

It was a combination of the attitude of indestructibility of being that
age and priorities.

Of course, I never did get sick. I could have forgone the
insurance for decades, and had I invested that money, I'd likely
have enough today that I could consider myself self-insured and
not care a rats-ass about what happens to the rest of the system.
But so much for the fantasy.

But I have no problem with the idea of all the college kids (who
tend to be on the liberal side) being made to pay a large chunk of
change for the future they have voted for. Seems only fair.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
The US should go ahead and mandate a lot of things:
Everyone must buy flight, train, bus, ship, subway, taxi - any type of transportaiton insurance for each one and show proof before boarding any of those regulated transportation methods. Afterall, there are 0 to 5 accidents a year in those where people get killed, and so forcing everyone to pay into a pool so that those unlucky few relatives can collect a few million dollars is well worth it.

Everyone should buy lightning insurance. People get hit by ligthing every year. Everyone is a potential victim so all should pay into a pool for lighting victims and their survivors.

Everyone should pay into a routine "Darwin" insurance pool. There are always some stupid poeple out there that will "Darwin themselves" out of existence and others too so we should pay into a pool for that.

Health should be no different, charge everyone - from before they are born till a few years after they die - enough insurance to cover the current costs incurred in the whole health system. So if 4 trillion a year is spent by Government run research, private hospotals, non-profit to proivide all aspects of health care (which means they make money but not given to shareholders, they can make a billion dollars net profit and still be a non-profit) divide by 315 million people in the US, then every person in the US needs only to pay 12,698 a year into the pool to cover all health care costs for everyone from before being born till they are into the ground - regardless if they ever get sick or not. So that age bracket from 18 to 40 for most men where they seldom if ever get hurt or sick, they can support all the others. It never will be fair but it will be shared equally by all - which is what socialism is all about. Coursse that means a family of 4 has to pay into the pool $48,000 a year, but that is not the problem of the government - you chose to have kids and become a couple so you just have to pay your share of the costs.
And if, like "Obamacare" you tell people that if you make less than 60k a year it will all be paid for by others, then someone ELSE will have to pay $96K a year to support you - but since you get it "free" you are gladly willing to vote for it since you NEVER will ever pay for any "benefits" you receive.
No politician will ever speak the truth to the masses on this - it would mean the people wanting the services would have to pay for it and that is something politicans never want to tell people.
Posted by TAPhilo
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Anyone care to address the point?
The point is that everyone needs health care -- preventive health
care -- in order to prevent disease. Doesn't matter your age, or
your insurance status, or your income. Without such care, you
die expensively, and quickly.

This is what science says. Obamacare has nothing to do with it,
except insofar as that it allows for regular checkups. Insurance
companies have been trying to push this as the "medical home"
model for years.

It's a question of how long people, who are society, live, and in
what condition, at what cost to insurers or government. They live
longer, they live better, they live at less cost to others if they get
regular maintenance.

Just like cars.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Anyone care to address the point?
"The point is that everyone needs health care -- preventive health
care -- in order to prevent disease."

No everyone does not NEED health care -- preventative healthcare.
1. People NEED to be responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior.

2. People NEED to stop stealing from other people, and demanding other people support them.

"This is what science says"
Would that be the same "science" that claims the Himalayan glaciers are melting and will be gone by 2035 or something like that.
Or the same "science" that was talking about "man-made" global warming and studied ONE TREE?
Or the same "science" of Michael Mann and Al Gore?

Please!

Dana, you have to realize... people get sick. People die. It's nature.

"It's a question of how long people, who are society, live, and in
what condition, at what cost to insurers or government. They live
longer, they live better, they live at less cost to others if they get
regular maintenance."

No, they live at less cost to others if they TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for themselves and not rely on others to take care of them.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Giving coverage does not change usage habits.
Massachusetts banked on huge savings from reduced emergency room visits when they gave health insurance to everyone who had none. Most of the targeted people were using the ER visits as primary doctor visits.

Now what happens is these people still go to the ER. They refuse to make an appointment and wait to see a primary care doctor like the rest of us. Since the law was past ER visits have increased, not decreased. ER costs have skyrocketed with a huge increase in a demand for broader services well outside the emergency classification. ER costs have definitely not dropped.

Now these people walk into the ER waving their insurance cards and requesting to see specific doctors. If that doctor is not working that day they demand to know when they are working next and then storm out in a huff only to come back later.

---But an annual check-up isn?t just the lecture. It?s also the tests which precede it. This is your blood pressure, your cholesterol count, your blood sugar level. And it?s the offer of help.---

They also refuse to get the annual checkups everyone expected them to get once they had coverage. Again, because they feel entitled to better service than the rest of us. They do not want to wait in line to see a primary care doctor. The cost savings from annual visits providing preventative services have failed to materialize. The few who want an annual checkup are walking into an ER and demanding one.

Outreach clinics to educate these people on the benefits of having health insurance have failed to make a dent in the problem. These people feel entitled to the best care quickly. Right or wrong, they see that being in the ER.

For those states waiting for Obama care to kick in, you should know that this great use of emergency medical services is what you can look forward too as much of Obama care is modeled on Massachusetts. We are years into this problem because of the state law, but you will catch up.

By giving this group of people health care coverage all we did was feed their sense of entitlement. In Massachusetts it has pushed 6 community hospitals to the brink of bankruptcy because the state refuses to reimburse them for ER services provided under the new law. Why?

Because the state cut the ER reimbursement budget based on their glowing projections of reduced ER visits. Reimbursing the money would mean further unbalancing the state budget and more important to the political hacks on Beacon Hill, admitting failure.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
Any meaningful change - whether it involves health care or any other substantive issue - is threatening to large companies who profit under the status quo. The health insurance industry found a way to be profitable even though costs increase much faster than over-all inflation. And the poor have always been left to the mercies of state budgets.
Posted by hoodedswan
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Albee_Freeoneday
Rejecting science changes nothing. It won't make the summer
cooler, and it won't help us live as long or as healthy as our
economic competitors.

We spend 17% of GDP on health care in this country. Our results
are on par with those of Cuba.

That may seem like a growing market, but it's also a cancer
eating at our economic competitiveness. Your ideology may feel
better about that, but it's costing us years and suffering and
trillions of dollars.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hates Idiots
Attacking the poor as a class is classless.

Massachusetts has not been able to increase the supply of
primary care facilities sufficient to deliver on the promises of its
reform, and that's a lesson we need to heed over the next few
years.

I don't happen to think that Americans are as stupid as you do. I
think that with proper care they'll react as people in other
countries do.

The challenge is to get it to them. Or rather to get it to us.
Because you yourself may be one slip-and-fall, one pink slip,
away from joining those "unworthy" poor you seem to hate so
much.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Science Part 1
"Rejecting science changes nothing."
I don't reject science. But the "science is settled" on "man-made global warming" is false.

I do not buy the premise there is such a thing.
And you are putting words in my mouth when you are saying I am rejecting science.

Science can not be used to prove anything. It only dis-proves theories. And if a theory is dis-proved, then it is wrong.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
You Missed My Main Point -- Please Answer It
And you are dodging the main statement which I will address again so you can give a good thoughtful answer.
"People NEED to be responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. "

I think you also need to address why so much is spent on healthcare and if as you say "Our results
are on par with those of Cuba. "

Why?
Could it be all those un-necessary (for health) tests given -- but necessary in case of a frivolous lawsuit? Could that be one reason for waste?

Could another thing be that CONgress will not allow people to buy health insurance at the lowest price,because they can not buy across state lines?

Could another thing be people not taking care of themselves?

Well?

Just like education... throwing money at a problem does not solve it. As Ted Nugent once said "Do you want to feel good, or do you want to do good?"

Regarding "a cancer eating at our economic competitiveness"
That would be unions. Now I am not against unions. I am against them being able to shut down businesses, prevent business owners from hiring replacement employees when the union people go on strike. I am against the unions protecting inept and unqualified people who work at a job.

If unions were there to get discounts based on buying power, that would be fine. But to dictate to owners of a company how much they will be paid, what job they will do and how much of it they will do, and the employer has their hands tied. That saps competitiveness.

Another big "cancer eating at our economic competitiveness" would be the tax system. Go with the Fair Tax and you will see competitiveness leap forward so fast you will be speechless.

Finally, regarding what you said to "Hates Idiots"
"you seem to hate so much." So you know Hates Idiots personally? Have you ever spoken to Hates Idiots? If not how do you know whether Hates Idiots hates poor people? Unless you are making the leap that all poor people are idiots.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
I wish I could remember the article I commented to on this site about Health Care. It was right after it was passed. Remembering, I wrote something like, 'Just how do we take care of those 32 million without the infrastructure. The neighborhood clinics that will be the first line of Defense! AND, just how do we populate these clinics with Qualified Doctors?! Where is the Government Plan?! I hear nothing except "You will have to pass it to know what's in it!" All I see in this is a Financial bill. To be sure, if the family of "Octomom" is to be covered from birth to death, it will be a 'financial burden' on the economy. To be sure that the Maintenance Idea is quantified, everyone SHALL be mandated to a Maintenance Exam at least once a year. Then you will be required by the Next year to have improved yourself OR be Placed into a HEALTH program OR Charged More,(but you're not paying anyway because you are poor, and you are SUBSIDIZED. Or, your FOOD card will ONLY PAY FOR THE FOOD THAT IS APPROVED FOR YOUR HEALTH BY THE GOVERNMET> Do you see where this is leading for the POOR!
Posted by Solution1
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
One More Thing
What about dietary supplements, and other alternative treatments.

If Big Brother was so interested in the populations health, they would stop preventing companies from making proven health claims on such products, and treatments.

They would embrace the diversity of all sorts of treatments, from Traditional Chinese Medicine (remember when acupuncture was illegal here in the USA due to the FDA and AMA). Indian Aryuvedic medicine, etc. Let eh consumer become informed and decide... not the government bureaucrats.

The FDA would not have attacked cherry growers a few years back saying Cherries are drugs because the cherry growers linked to studies done by US Dept of Agriculture showing cherries more effective in arthritis care than pharmaceuticals.

Remember health insurance is only there to prevent someone from going bankrupt due to medical bills. Having health insurance does not make people healthier, or prevent them from getting diseases.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The exact response I expected Dana.
Confront a liberal with the facts and reality of the situation and he calls you names.

Childish and unproductive for the discussion Dana. Grow up and face the reality.

There are people in this country of all backgrounds that are leaches. Some are lower class as you point out and some are trust fund babies, but they are all leaches. For the sake of this discussion most of the people involved are poor. So what.

I never said people have not been helped by this law. People have been. Some of them are middle calls friends of mine.

The point is Dana, we have taught a generation of people that they are entitled to government support. I do not know where you live, but in my lower middle class city we have generations of families who feel they never have to work.

Do you know you can collect SSI disability insurance for acid reflux? A recent study in my city found 90 people under the age of 30 collecting permanent Social Security Disability for acid reflux. We will be supporting these people for over 50 years and that does not bother you.

It shows an incredible amount of immaturity on your part that you cannot tell the difference between making an observation on the destructive behavior of people and profiling a group of people.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Make some phone calls. Talk to people...
You disregard any link posted that does not support your position so I am not going to bother.

First of all you missed the part where people REFUSE to go to a primary care even when assigned one by the state. Outreach clinics have failed to reverse the trend because these people REFUSE to go to a primary care doctor. So the lack of primary care doctors is irrelivent.

What has happened is the people who go to primary care doctors are losing ours. 45,000 health care professionals, doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners, have retired early or left the state because of the hostile environment the state has created. My doctor is retiring this fall at age 60. He had planned to work until 70, like his father and older brother.

The trend of importing doctors and nurses from third world countries has already begun in Massachusetts because we cannot lure people to a state where the average Medicaid payment for an annual visit has been cut by 60% and hospitals go unpaid for services provided as stated in the law.

Get a clue before you dig your hole any deeper
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Dana Dana Dana . . . There you go again.
You misled your readers. While it's true that healthcare is something
people need . . .

It is altogether a different matter when it's forced by the government.
And don't tell me it's not forced. When the government says you can
either choose to be apart of this program or pay penalties . . . that's
forced. What if I choose not to pay into it? I get penalized. That's not
freedom. That's socialism. I'm paying for something I don't want.

Like it or not, there are people in this world who DO NOT want health
care or its coverage. Period. Just like the studies done that show
there are people out there who also wish to remain homeless. Scary
but 100% true.

Why should EVERYONE be beholden to a program if they don't want
it? Why would anyone advocate a healthcare system that doesn't
allow people to make a their own choices about their own health? All
those statistics about obesity and other health problems have nothing
to do with the real issue . . .

Government mandated (---- key word) healthcare is healthcare at the
expense of freedom of choice. If you come back to me and say, 'they
didn't have a choice to begin with,' then I say you're drinking the kool-
aid. Government is the reason our health care system thus far is the
best in the world (most advancements in medical technology,
methodology, and care). Go to Italy if you want to see a healthcare
system that doesn't believe in anesthetic . . . also government run
healthcare.

If I choose to eat and become obese . . . that's my fate. Not the
government . . . nor anyone else. The only real freedom we have in
our lives is the ability to choose. Erode that ability and that freedom
becomes strengthening slavery.
Posted by razorsyntax
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Your goal for helping the poor is noble, but clueless...
As razorsyntax said perfectly...

--Like it or not, there are people in this world who DO NOT want health care or its coverage.---

My addition to this comment is that some people want the health care, but on their terms. As we have seen in Massachusetts that means visits to the ER because they refuse to conform to your standards and go to a primary care doctor.

A proposal to enact a co-pay on non-emergency ER visits was shot down. The intent was to encourage the use of free primary care doctors. Liberals shot the idea down even when hospitals offered to provide free transportation for these non-emergency patients to a local clinic to see a primary care doctor for free.

The free transport to a hospital provided free primary care doctor was cheaper than providing the non-emergency service in the ER. It also would not tie up valuable ER trauma resources on non-emergency care.

And please note. This is nothing like the patient dumping that a certain health care advisor for President Obama did in the 1980?s in Chicago while the first lady was an administrator in the same hospital.

That was Ezekiel Immanuel for the uneducated liberals in the audience.

The only reason he did not go to jail is because the practice had not happened before when doctors honored the Hippocratic oath and was technically not against the law.

You see old Ezekiel believes the Hippocratic oath is an impediment to universal health care. His actions became a federal felony offense in a law passed by an outraged Congress and signed by President Reagan within a few weeks of the incident coming to light.

If you did any research on what is going on in the real world you would know all of this.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
THREE CHEERS for Albee_Freeoneday, razorsyntax, and Hates Idiots!!

Dana says:
It will just make the truth more stark, as America?s lifespan falls, and we face a future with ever fewer aging, querulous white folks and a growing army of young, unhealthy, black and brown ones.
Don't worry about them. If they are that "unhealty", they won't live long enough to collect Social Security (or what replaces it).
Posted by JTF243@...
6th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
JTF243@...
I think you summarized well the basic heartlessness at the center of
this thread. Thank you.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
7th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
You still do not get it...
It is not about being heartless. It is about being real and setting real expectations. This is my case in Massachusetts, but this applies anywhere.

It is unreal for a group of people, rich or poor it does not matter, to demand a higher level of service than everyone else while expecting it for free.

Deny it all you want. The fact is that this group of people refuse to go to make appointments for primary care doctors like the rest of us. Yet they demand all of those primary care services from an Emergency Room that is ill equipped to provide them. All while getting those services for free. The situation is crazy. To deny the existence of the problem is a sign of how out of touch you are.

Tell me in all honesty that what they are expecting is fair.

Put your rose colored glasses away and see the light of day. Liberal policies in Massachusetts have created this monster of people who expect extra special care for free.

Let me make it clear for you since you seem to be very thick headed on this point.

I HAVE NEVER TALKED ABOUT DENYING THEM HEALTH CARE.

I want them to play by the same rules I have too. That is all.

Contrary to your claims of class warfare, it is you waging war on me. You want me to pay for them to get better service for free than I get paying for it myself.

People like you will not listen to solutions like having an ER co-pay for non-emergency services because you will not acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Lets do an experiment. Lab rat Dana, go to one of those European Emergency Rooms you are so fond of and try demanding to see a primary care doctor for an annual physical. I?ll bet you get thrown out on your head faster than you can say universal health care.
Posted by Hates Idiots
9th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hates Idiots
This just in. The Massachusetts plan was proposed and passed by
Gov. Mitt Romney. Based on ideas first proposed in the 1993 health
care debate by Bob Dole. Which in turn was in response to
proposals made in the early 1970s by Richard Nixon.

Let me know when I hit a liberal-socialist-communist-redistributionist.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
10th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
So what?
Nixon, Romney, Dole. Hardly icons of free market thought by any
standard.

All your response validates is that central planning promulgated by
Republicans fails just as badly as central planning by Democrats. It
certainly doesn't support the argument that central planning by
Democrats will be any better.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
11th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
News flash. Dana wakes up to find it is 2010..
Dana.. While I have not said it in this tread, I have said several times on this web site during the whole health care discussion that is was Romney who passed the Massachusetts law working with a Democrat controlled legislature.

Thanks for catching up with the times. You are only 4 years late in this shocking discovery.

Again. You prove how clueless you are on the Massachusetts situation and how you never take the time to comprehend the posts readers like me put on this web site.

Here is another news flash. The Republican legislators who voted for the Romney plan, including Scott Brown as a State Senator, have tried to fix the programs problems as they have been realized, like the necessity for a non-emergency co-pay for non-emergency ER visits.

Like you, the Democrat controlled legislature and now Governor Patrick deny there are problems. They have blocked all attempts to fix clearly identified problems with the law.

By repeating the mistakes of Massachusetts and Tennessee, read up on the failed Tenn-care experiment for a laugh, and you will see that Obama only proved he cannot learn from the mistakes made in the recent past.
Posted by Hates Idiots
11th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Tell the whole story Dana.... Do not hide the best part..
You forgot to mention that a universal health care bill, put forward by Nixon in February of 1974, was shot down by that all American Republican hero Ted Kennedy.

Oh wait a minute. Teddy was a Democrat, not a Republican. My bad.

OMG Dana? Is someone saying his long time Democrat Senator shot down a health care reform bill containing universal health care?

Yes I am. Nixon submitted a comprehensive health care reform bill because he believed in it and wanted to see it happen before his inevitable departure.

It failed to pass when Senator Ted Kennedy led the Democrat majority Senate in a party line fight against the bill.

The esteemed Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts publicly regretted that decision for the rest of his life and died without ever seeing universal health care because of his own actions.

Ted Kennedys stubborn refusal to retire for health reasons also setup Scott Browns rise and left the Senate without a crucial 60th vote for over a year while he missed over 200 votes while ill.

During his funeral, local SEIU union members given the day off from work and ordered to attend by the union, lined the motorcade route holding signs praising Ted. But one sign said we forgive you for 74.

It took local liberal TV reporters days to figure that one out, but local talk radio hosts explained it within minutes.

http://thenewnixon.org/2010/03/25/rns-health-care-bill-more-comprehensive-than-obamas/
Posted by Hates Idiots
11th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hates Idiots
You're right about Kennedy and health reform in the 1970s. He later
said it was of the things in his life he was most ashamed of.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
12th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
I know a few people who eat healthy, exercise, avoid legal and
illegal drugs and still contract cancer or heart disease. Your odds
may be better but there are no guarantees.

The decision to buy or not buy health insurance is about
personal responsibility vs. gambling. If you never get sick or if
your family's health care bill never exceeds your savings account,
you gambled and won. If your health care bill grossly exceeds
your ability to pay, you lose. If you believe in personal
responsibility, you are the only one who loses and you quietly die
without complaining. If you believe in Socialism, we all lose with
you.

Here is the question that matters. If you believe you have the
right to gamble and if you lose, will you accept the consequences
and let your disease run its course? Will you sign an oath to that
effect before you get sick? Or will you someday come asking
taxpayers and insurance premium payers to have pity on you and
share the cost of your care?

If you accept the Republican ideal of personal responsibility, you
purchase health insurance so that you never become a burden
on others. If you elect to go without health insurance but are not
willing to accept the consequences, instead secretly hoping the
rest of us will bail you out someday if you cannot afford the care
you need, that's called Socialism.

Most who have been complaining about the mandatory insurance
provision in the new health insurance reform law get it backward.
Posted by HCTReditor
12th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you HTCReditor.
Well said.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
Just remember that drugs can be dangerous if not managed properly, it is recommended that a specialist on health care will recommend the right thing. ..
http://bit.ly/ch3Cee
Posted by neto_vicodin
13th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
Dana,

You require statins because of your own personal lifstyle choices over the last 40 years. Who should pay for your prescription drugs, you, or the U.S. taxpayer?

A 20-40 year old single employee at my company pays $64 per paycheck for "health insurance" (the company pays even more). This $1,536 a year entitles them to a $15 co-pay for doctor visits, $30 for a specialst. If said employee pays for his own doctor visits twice a year, and uses the $1200-1300 left over for a high deductible policy to cover a catastrophy, you will be ahead healthwise over the 20-40 yo who doesn't go to the doctor, and ahead financially over the one who asks the insurance company to pay their bills.
Posted by bb_apptix
16th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
HCTReditor
Your assumption that people will quietly die, or be allowed to
quietly die, run counter to medical practice and the ethics of the
profession going back 200 years.

It's really nice to sit back and say "quietly die" to someone you
don't know. Will you say it to your uninsured college-age
daughter? To your mother? To your spouse? To yourself? When
push comes to shove, we want to live, and care-givers want us to
as well.

That's the problem with ideology. Whether it's communist or
fascist or religious or just capitalist in nature, it fails to account for
the complex reality we all must live with.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
16th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
bb_apptix
You're missing two important points.

1. That 20-something can benefit enormously, in terms of risk,
from far more intensive care than your catastrophic gives them.
Pay more now and you are very likely to pay less later.
2. My high cholesterol comes from my family. My dad was rail thin,
but had his first heart attack at age 47. I lost a similarly-sized
neighbor to a heart attack at 44 because he wasn't diagnosed.
We all carry risks we don't know about, and that's why we all need
care in order to mitigate those risks.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
16th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
One requirement of ObamaCare I do approve of.
Starting soon, the W-2 you receive from your employer will include
the amount that your employer pays for your health insurance. That
this is done because they plan on taxing you on this amount in the
future is uncertain. (but not unlikely) But it is a step in the right
direction in educating people what their health care actually costs.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
Dana,

I agree with your practical assessment but that was not the point of my call to personal responsibility. My ideological proposal -- that along with the right to refuse to purchase life insurance goes the responsibility to refuse to become a burden on those who do purchase it -- is more of a dare than an idea, more of an expose' of hypocrisy than an actual workable proposal. I am trying to demonstrate that exercising that right is not only a dumb idea but contrary to traditional conservative principles. I am trying to ask why conservatives are so quick to abandon their commitment to personal responsibility just because it is a Democrat who asks them to live up to it.

If it were my mother or daughter or wife, I would try to talk some sense into them at the time they elected not to buy insurance and signed my mythical vow, not after they got sick.
Posted by HCTReditor
19th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Everybody needs health care
It's hard to argue that everyone should have health insurance, but the reality is that the cost for a reasonable plan is obscene. I've got coverage under one of the benchmark programs Group Health, $250 deductable, $750 family, nothing extraordinary, my premiums went up this past june 2010 by over 30%. The cost for basic health for my family of 4 is $1,670/mo or $20,040/year plus deductables plus co-pays. By the way this doesn't include any thing for vision or dental. This is almost as much as my mortgage, insurance and property taxes. This is not affordable by any stretch of the imagination. Yes I could and will probably have to go to a high deductable plan to drop the cost but even a $5,000 individual & $20,000 family deductable still requires a monthly premium of $1,000/mo on top of the deductables. If you have your insurance paid in part or all by your employer check out what it would cost you if you got laid off, exclude the stimulas coverage mine expires in january. And anybody that thinks people can sustain long on unemployment insurance at least in Washington state are so full of BS, the maximum unemployment is $615/wk or 2,460 and thats if you were making $80K/yr the average check is $298/wk. We need a real solution so we all can afford reasonable health care coverage.
Posted by mkantonen
25th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If you expect low deductibles and co-pays...
...what you are buying isn't "insurance" but an "advance payment
plan" for health care. It's a big difference.

You should definitely check out a high-deductible plan and then
fund an HSA so you can shop for your regular care and pay for it
pre-tax. But even then, don't expect annual increases to be any
less than 20%/year. Even the most ardent advocates of
ObamaCare are now distancing themselves from the promise that
it would reduce costs or the deficit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th Aug 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!