Bring in the clowns!
by Jay Stevens
Whoa! As if to underscore how friggin’ out there intellectual support for anti-reform is, enter Paul Hsieh:
Hence, if Bill makes more money than Joe and can purchase a $500 MRI scan that Joe can’t, then Bill deserves it. That’s not rationing, that’s justice — just as it’s not rationing if Bill can afford a house while Joe must live in an apartment, or if Bill can afford steak whereas Joe eats hamburgers.
Of course, neither living in apartment or eating burgers may directly lead to Joe’s death…but hey! Income level is a true measure of a person’s inherent value, right?…Right?
Damn! And this guy is a doctor!
Advertisement
-
Recent Comments
petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Rob Kailey on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
September 1, 2009 at 10:58 am
Well I suppose the way to prevent rationing in government-run health care is for them to treat illnesses based on income then, right? Because that’s not rationing at all!
It’s nice that amongst the talk of exploding deficits and faux-concern for patients, some of these guys will tell you what they REALLY think.
September 1, 2009 at 11:23 am
Aristocracy still lives in america’s health care system.
Time for another revolution!
September 1, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I think I know Joe.
He’s the guy who shipped classes in school, bought fancy cars and trucks, partied every weekend.
While his other classmates prepared for college Joe lived the high life, drank increasingly more, gambled and chain smoked camels.
Now Joe has high blood pressure, bad liver, and a dreadful smokers cough.
Now that Joe has nothing beside debt and poor health, he demands us to pay for his indiscretions.
September 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm
And who pays for yours?
September 1, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Actually it’s more likely that Joe came down with an illness through no fault of his own, and was laid off by his employer as a result. Our vaunted private institutions won’t insure him, so he goes deeply into debt, dies, and leaves his family with the tab.
You’re right, Swede. People who don’t have health insurance are jerks. All of ‘em.
September 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I am so hurt and offended by Paul Hsieh’s article that I can barely type in a straight line. I had no idea that I deserved to have health problems because of my income level (or, more accurately, deserved to live with unresolved health problems because my income level prevented treatment). I had to read the entire article just to be sure that he was actually saying what I thought he was…and he was. Wow.
I agree with problembear (so glad to have you back, by the way), it’s time we-the-people say enough is enough.
September 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Could we, just for the sake of argument, throw out the “no fault of your own” line of health care speak?
I agree that there is a small percentage who probably are just unlucky and become ill. However, the majority of health care stems from things like obesity, smoking, diet and lack of exercise. When people are knowledge and have been for at least 2 generations about the things that kill you, why are you so eager to take from the people who generally have good health and habits to give to those who don’t? So not only do we get Robin Hood economics, but Robin Hood health care???
September 1, 2009 at 4:35 pm
tim- so what in the hell is wrong with robin hood and his merry men? or are you one of the sheriff of nottingham’s minions??
besides being boorishly insensitive to suffering people everywhere, that is one of the most asinine arguments i have ever had the pleasure to skewer.
the answer tim, is no.
September 1, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Tim:
Can we at least add a pragmatic paradigm to the line of health care speak? We’ve known for decades that the baby boomer generation will bankrupt our social safety net programs federally. If we can’t get people covered by insurance, going to the doctor regularly, making good lifestyle choices, and keeping them healthy – we’re in trouble.
I don’t want to spend the next 30-40 years of my life paying for the mistake of NOT working towards universal coverage. Health events don’t just come and go, they compound on each other, often go untreated or partially treated, and turn into life or death situations more easily over time. The only way to combat that trend is provide coverage, get people to doctors, and keeping them as healthy as possible. This is the most cost effective way to cope with an overwhelming demand on health services from an aging population (dollars needed) that will dwarf younger generations (dollars provided) in numbers. There is just no other viable option – for those of us who think letting people die of treatable illness due to lack of money is unethical.
Oh, and I’m not interested in the Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand answer… I already know what it is. :-)
September 3, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Can we at least add a pragmatic paradigm to the line of health care speak? We’ve known for decades that the baby boomer generation will bankrupt our social safety net programs federally. If we can’t get people covered by insurance, going to the doctor regularly, making good lifestyle choices, and keeping them healthy – we’re in trouble.
<<So, our condition to the people who don't do this is, good job for all those bad choices, now we'll pay for everyone to live shitty lifestyles?
I don’t want to spend the next 30-40 years of my life paying for the mistake of NOT working towards universal coverage. Health events don’t just come and go, they compound on each other, often go untreated or partially treated, and turn into life or death situations more easily over time. The only way to combat that trend is provide coverage, get people to doctors, and keeping them as healthy as possible. This is the most cost effective way to cope with an overwhelming demand on health services from an aging population (dollars needed) that will dwarf younger generations (dollars provided) in numbers. There is just no other viable option – for those of us who think letting people die of treatable illness due to lack of money is unethical.
<<You're assertion is that if people just get free coverage, they won't get sick ever and it won't cost us so much money. However, until you are mandating people don't smoke, don't eat fatty foods, exercise 30 minutes a day, etc, I don't see this happening. Aside from the fact that you still can't deal with the costs of health care, it's a very optimistic approach that ignores all of reality.
Oh, and I’m not interested in the Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand answer… I already know what it is. :-)
<<That's so funny, because I know most of what you and the others say here is the "Communist Manifesto" answer, and I keep coming back.
September 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm
What I’m saying is that there is an upcoming shift in age demographics. That’s not the fault of social policy.
Public option does have not to be free – it’s an option. If it needs to be free for some, then so be it. Better to have them covered than not (if they go uncovered and end up in the emergency room we pay anyway -twice! higher health care costs and higher premiums). Further, the bill has other regulatory changes improving coverage for everyone.
Thanks for recognizing Marxism – which is not the same as communism. Unfortunately for you, universal health insurance coverage is plain old good, free-market economics. Universal service is found in other markets as well – it’s really not that revolutionary. But bring on the revolution none the less – one mind at a time.
September 1, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Tim, the answer to your question is “no” we cannot throw out that line.
What are you, supernaturally healthy? Never had to take antibiotics or have an injury attended to? I consider myself damned healthy and lucky, but I’ve torn cartilage in my knee (in high school sports), I’ve had strep throat (only once, but it’s not like I avoided other infections by somehow being virtuous–I was just lucky) and had an infected wound on my foot–all of those things needed medical attention and it would have made me very angry if I’d had to face an economic choice of how much treatment to have (or whether to go in at all, or let my fever get so bad that I went to the ER).
Blind libertarianism is not the answer to all political problems. Insurance distributes the social costs and lets people make better economic choices with their lives. I definitely don’t want insurance to be “free” for everyone, but under our current system we’re paying way too much for generally unsatisfactory outcomes.
September 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm
the thing tim misses is that he is already paying for emergency room visits and emergency surgical procedures for people he doesn’t care about with his higher insurance premiums. hospitals are simply doing it and passing the cost on to those of us who do pay for insurance. so what savings does tim think he is going to get by preventing people he doesn’t care about from getting affordable universal health care?
it will only cost more in the end to let them get worse until they need expensive life-saving procedures. universal health care would save money in the end. it is only logical to support universal health care even if all you care about is the savings.
September 1, 2009 at 8:23 pm
When we absorb all these 47 million new health care cases, including illegals and substance abusers, will we allocate time or money for new medical technology?
Does Canada, England, France lead the world in medical innovation when they can’t seem to have enough resources for prompt service.
Lets take this little camera, how can we be assured that advances like this be funded over AIDS research or methadone clinics.
>>DOCTORS doing a needle biopsy to analyze tissue for cancer may one day add a second step to the procedure: depositing a tiny device at the site to report on growth of a tumor — and even the effects of chemotherapy.
Koch Institute
Michael J. Cima
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created prototypes for cancer monitors the size of a grain of rice, small enough to fit easily into the bore of a biopsy needle. Tiny coated particles inside the devices can bind with molecules linked to cancer at the site, creating minuscule clumps that can be detected by a non-invasive scan like an M.R.I., said Michael J. Cima, a professor of materials science and engineering at M.I.T. and leader of the team that created the devices.<<
September 1, 2009 at 8:34 pm
how much money is going to fund these developments if the entire system goes bankrupt, and it will. are you willing to trust your precious private enterprise/profit after the epic failure of wall street?
just like wall street, the mechanic was telling us you can pay him now or you can pay him later. and we didn’t listen. we opted for the status quo. how is that going to work better for the health care system? how are we going to pay for all those uninsured and underinsured people who ignore their health due to lack of proper access to preventive health care and then show up in the emergency rooms for expensive treatments?
somehow i doubt if there will be any money for your precious inventions if as a country we bury our heads in the sand and just wish the inevitable to go away.
September 1, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Insurers are the problem, Big Swede…not the medical industry all encompassing. You act as if regulating and industry that is working up to 50% profit levels is somehow going to affect medical and academic research.
What they’re looking to do is to make changes to a system that is currently skimming 40% profit (and rising) off its customers. This insane profit and monopoly is a stranglehold on our economy. That is a fact. The U.S. of A. is rapidly shipping or trucking its manufacturing and industrial sector over seas and to Canada and Mexico – places where nationalized and regulated health care systems are ways of life.
You complained in another thread about the big G taxing you at 40%, but at least you are getting something for it (roads, police, fire – just for starts)…..your health care costs (yours and your employers, mind you) are 40% profit in the pockets of people who are regularly denying coverage while pocketing billions of dollars annually.
How is one 40% OK for you, and the other not?
September 1, 2009 at 9:13 pm
40% isn’t ok, neither is 50. Mostly because their profit are much lower.
And…….
There’s 1300 HI’s, hardly a monopoly.
September 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm
there’s little competition though swede…..
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090901/NEWS01/909010344/Institute++Little+competition+now+available+among+health+insurers
Antitrust enforcers have been asleep at the switch for the past several years and have permitted health insurers to acquire monopolies in dozens of markets,” said David Balto, an antitrust lawyer and advisory board member of the American Antitrust Institute.
September 1, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Choice of health insurance is limited in Montana. Blue Cross Blue Shield MT alone constitutes 75 percent of the health insurance market share in Montana, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 85 percent.
From here.
September 1, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Thxs for the link jgirl.
Definite non partisan stuff there, with conflicting numbers and dead end resources.
September 1, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Whoa…was that hard.
September 1, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Even harder
This turns up as first choice.
Some highlights there?
BlueCross/BlueShield has a 90% share here in Missoula
BlueCross/BlueShield has a 95% share in Great Falls.
September 1, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Erm, BigS, Canada, England, and France have plenty enough resources for prompt service. They have some of the world’s finest hospitals. But, they differentiate between what is basic and necessary health care coverage and what is a luxury.
September 1, 2009 at 9:50 pm
the wealthy have always hankered for new-fangled ways to remain on this earth and they will pay anything to make themselves immune from death.
and no wonder, considering what awaits them…..
most of us in america just want to live normal lives with decent health care swede. and that is apparently asking too much for the far right and the top 5% incomers.
good luck with that immunity thing there….
September 3, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Yes, those horrible rich people who pay almost 60% of their income to the govt wanting some left over to have health care while half of Americans pay no federal income tax or get checks from the government and now want free healthcare.
What horrible, horrible people those richy riches are…
September 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm
60%? You’re delusional. Have you forgotten the Bush tax cuts?
Marginal tax rate is 35% on the rich. After they hide most of their income.
September 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Yes, 35%, IF they don’t hit the AMT, and then there’s state income tax, and many places like NYC have local income taxes, as well as sales tax on everything you buy, and FICA/SS/MediCAID/CARe tax. Oh and gas tax, tolls, licensing vehicles, taxes on phone, lights, water, internet, television, cigarettes, alcohol.
You’re right, where would I get a number like 60%???????? KRAZY!
September 3, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Point to one documented case of an individual in the top tax bracket having an effective 60% of gross tax rate. You’re just blowing hot stinky air out your backside.
September 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Tim, most of the non-income taxes you name actually hit those less well off disproportionately. If anything my tax rate is higher than most of the ueber-rich, after everything’s said and done.
September 1, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Ya left out Cuba, Bink.
September 1, 2009 at 11:14 pm
5:00 comes pretty early, I’m sure we’ll be continuing this on future posts.
Can’t leave without making a statement, tho.