For profit medical treatment?

[otters]

Are you really certain that you want to classify escorts as human slaves?

The last I heard escorts choose their profession unlike the thousands of women and children sold into prostitution with little to no hopes of escape.

Yes, because I guess that the "escorts" a certain Mr benvolio is talking about (and "hiring" them, as he often says) are rather prostitutes of the involuntary type:
Drug abusers, illegal immigrants, and so on. People who "do not deserve (because they don't work legally)" health care, as Mr benvolio clearly expressed above.

 

[peeonme]

If health care is a right, then so is having slaves.

From our declaration of independence: Certain unalienable rights, among these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
They go on to say that governments are put in place to secure these rights.
Life in most cases is sustained by a form of maintenance... food, water, exercise and health care in varying forms, from a band aid over a scrape to heart surgery and beyond.

If a government allows it's citizens to die from diseases that are curable, then that government is destructive to these rights and as was phrased by our founding fathers "should be thrown off".

Certainly slavery is destructive to liberty, it in the form that most think off it in is abolished.

 

[Kabluey]

It is not a right unless it is an enforcable right, it is just wishful thinking.
If you take the Universal Declaration seriously, everyone would have the right to have everything necessary provided withoout working. Total nonsense, and certainly not binding on the US or enforceable.
The American experience proves that welfare schemes lead to dependency, indolence and crime.
No one has the rihht to a communist economy ever if the Universal Declaration requires it and liberals want it.

Where does it say you have an inalienable right to profit from everything?
By your logic, the fire department may as well claim any houses they save from fire because, well, $$$$$.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

If health care is a right, then so is having slaves.

It is at this point where I will turn off JUB.

 

[thewiz]

If Benvolio is truly an attorney, he must not have been familiar with how health care works in the US. I guess the term "ignorance is bliss" truly does apply to some.

Our smaller, rural hospital (as do all hospitals) could not turn away individuals who came to the emergency room and required treatment. When I moved to DC, one of my former neighbors who was going to school full time, working part-time and who chose to eat over trying to buy health insurance developed appendicitis in the middle of the night; he called me to come across the hall at 2 a.m. when he woke with a high fever and extreme pain in his right side. After one look (and touching the area on his right side), I told him we needed to get to the hospital as fast as we could. He began crying because he could not afford an ambulance and had no health insurance. I drove him to GW Hospital ER to save on the cost of the ambulance although I worried I might have trouble getting him back out of the car when we arrived at the ER.

Needless to say by the time he got to surgery his appendix had burst. They only kept him in the hospital for two days and sent him home. His boyfriend could not get him in and out of their bed (which was a mattress on the floor of their apartment) so I let them use my bed which was higher off the floor and it would not strain him getting in and out. By the time he got to my house, he had already torn out a stitch and had to go back for repairs.

When the bill came, it was more than $36,000. I advised him how to seek some relief under the Hill-Burton Act (GW was a participating hospital so had to provide a certain level of uncompensated care). Our small rural hospital also had the same obligation and it cost us about $800,000 to $1 million per year.

Now where do you think we, as a small rural hospital, or GW, which is a larger urban center, got the millions that we had to provide each year? That's right, we billed your insurance company a higher rate to cover the cost of the uninsured. If you came to our emergency room, you likely paid a higher rate whether you were insured or not -- so if you paid cash, you were paying not only for your care but for part of the care of others who had no insurance and could not pay (and not because they were welfare queens or refusing to work -- there are truly poor that we saw with the ER as the last resort).

So Benvolio and the Republicans can blissfully go back to the old system but it results in someone paying, regardless of what they claim. I guess we could have just sent my neighbor out to the street to die of sepsis or those in the ER to pass away on benches outside the ER but it would probably validate Sarah Palin's death panels.

Health care is a necessity (I hesitate to say it is a right). The US has always provided it unlike any other country, primarily because of the auto companies and industrialization that was competing for workers. However, it is costly, there are no controls, and pricing is wildly different. Our small, rural hospital was about 78% of the cost of larger urban hospitals. West Michigan is one of the lowest price areas in the country for hospital care (in some cases 50% of what hospitals on the east and west coast charge). The former system provided no incentive to shop or even look at price because the employer paid all. It was also designed to be totally reactive rather than preventive in the nature of care.

As for escorts, most I know pay cash for their services (given or received).

 

[kallipolis]

As for escorts, most I know pay cash for their services (given or received).

I can't speak to matters in the United States...but in European Union countries, sexually transmitted infections are a public health matter, with diagnosis, and treatment free at point of delivery....

 

[JerryPic]

I can't speak to matters in the United States...but in European Union countries, sexually transmitted infections are a public health matter, with diagnosis, and treatment free at point of delivery....

How do you feel as a greek about the african refugees?

 

[kallipolis]

How do you feel as a greek about the african refugees?

Most refugees passing through Greece are not African....they are Asian, from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan....countries where wars are raging....most of the refugees are en route to North European countries...for Greece lacks the infrastructure to house, and feed them....and with an unemployment rate of 25 pct there are no opportunities for employment here.

 

[Kulindahr]

If Benvolio is truly an attorney, he must not have been familiar with how health care works in the US. I guess the term "ignorance is bliss" truly does apply to some.

Our smaller, rural hospital (as do all hospitals) could not turn away individuals who came to the emergency room and required treatment. When I moved to DC, one of my former neighbors who was going to school full time, working part-time and who chose to eat over trying to buy health insurance developed appendicitis in the middle of the night; he called me to come across the hall at 2 a.m. when he woke with a high fever and extreme pain in his right side. After one look (and touching the area on his right side), I told him we needed to get to the hospital as fast as we could. He began crying because he could not afford an ambulance and had no health insurance. I drove him to GW Hospital ER to save on the cost of the ambulance although I worried I might have trouble getting him back out of the car when we arrived at the ER.

Needless to say by the time he got to surgery his appendix had burst. They only kept him in the hospital for two days and sent him home. His boyfriend could not get him in and out of their bed (which was a mattress on the floor of their apartment) so I let them use my bed which was higher off the floor and it would not strain him getting in and out. By the time he got to my house, he had already torn out a stitch and had to go back for repairs.

When the bill came, it was more than $36,000. I advised him how to seek some relief under the Hill-Burton Act (GW was a participating hospital so had to provide a certain level of uncompensated care). Our small rural hospital also had the same obligation and it cost us about $800,000 to $1 million per year.

Now where do you think we, as a small rural hospital, or GW, which is a larger urban center, got the millions that we had to provide each year? That's right, we billed your insurance company a higher rate to cover the cost of the uninsured. If you came to our emergency room, you likely paid a higher rate whether you were insured or not -- so if you paid cash, you were paying not only for your care but for part of the care of others who had no insurance and could not pay (and not because they were welfare queens or refusing to work -- there are truly poor that we saw with the ER as the last resort).

So Benvolio and the Republicans can blissfully go back to the old system but it results in someone paying, regardless of what they claim. I guess we could have just sent my neighbor out to the street to die of sepsis or those in the ER to pass away on benches outside the ER but it would probably validate Sarah Palin's death panels.

Health care is a necessity (I hesitate to say it is a right). The US has always provided it unlike any other country, primarily because of the auto companies and industrialization that was competing for workers. However, it is costly, there are no controls, and pricing is wildly different. Our small, rural hospital was about 78% of the cost of larger urban hospitals. West Michigan is one of the lowest price areas in the country for hospital care (in some cases 50% of what hospitals on the east and west coast charge). The former system provided no incentive to shop or even look at price because the employer paid all. It was also designed to be totally reactive rather than preventive in the nature of care.

As for escorts, most I know pay cash for their services (given or received).

Old acronym: TANSTAAFL. "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". In Benvolio's system, the payment is rapacious; all those who need medical care end up paying more to cover those who can't. In its proposed replacement, it's also rapacious, but has a moral underpinning: we as a people have an obligation to take care of the least among us, the needy among us.

In traditional terms, Ben's system worships mammon, i.e. the god of greed; the alternative bows to -- at the very least -- our common humanity.

 

[nyctopgam]

Obviously you don't have much experience with government workers. Experience shows that they work less hard, less conscientiously, the those chosen by and compensated by, directly oy indirectly by the people they serve. Do you like waiting in line at the post office?

There are some sectors that some think are best served by the state. The post office is one of them (setting aside the changes from the nature of mail for now). It ensures that the little old lady who lives all alone away from everyone else gets her mail just as anybody else.

This assumes that social justice, equality and equitable distribution of resources are desirable social goals. Not every society and political system thinks so.

In the US the inefficiency and corruption in Wall Street is not seen as a reason to throw out or nationalize the stock exchange. Instead some corrupt inefficient banks are deemed too big to fail and their debts are paid off by money from the taxpayers. This is acceptable to Americans.

Similarly the post, health system, roads, and schools may be seen in some societies as too important to fail and must be paid for collectively. If they are inefficient they may address the inefficiency but not their existence.

Even in an extreme capitalist system like the US, certain state supported systems are spared from the "Private Is Better" ideology (or mantra or propaganda as you will). Like pure research which results in the internet, medicines and space travel for instance. It is then turned over or taken for free by the private sector to develop into product to market.

Some see this as corporate welfare. Some see it as the glory of market capitalism. Some see it as unfair and inaccurate accounting. Others don't see any problem with it.

What position you take just depends on who you are.

 

[Kulindahr]

There are some sectors that some think are best served by the state. The post office is one of them (setting aside the changes from the nature of mail for now). It ensures that the little old lady who lives all alone away from everyone else gets her mail just as anybody else.

This assumes that social justice, equality and equitable distribution of resources are desirable social goals. Not every society and political system thinks so.

In the US the inefficiency and corruption in Wall Street is not seen as a reason to throw out or nationalize the stock exchange. Instead some corrupt inefficient banks are deemed too big to fail and their debts are paid off by money from the taxpayers. This is acceptable to Americans.

Similarly the post, health system, roads, and schools may be seen in some societies as too important to fail and must be paid for collectively. If they are inefficient they may address the inefficiency but not their existence.

Even in an extreme capitalist system like the US, certain state supported systems are spared from the "Private Is Better" ideology (or mantra or propaganda as you will). Like pure research which results in the internet, medicines and space travel for instance. It is then turned over or taken for free by the private sector to develop into product to market.

Some see this as corporate welfare. Some see it as the glory of market capitalism. Some see it as unfair and inaccurate accounting. Others don't see any problem with it.

What position you take just depends on who you are.

Except it isn't acceptable to Americans. The vast majority think the bankers that did this to us belong in prison, probably permanently. The majority of Americans think that "too big to fail" means they should be broken into pieces small enough that if they fail it doesn't matter. The majority of Americans believe that if a business screws up, it should be allowed to die.

Most of our Founding Fathers saw large corporations as dangerous to liberty. We're finding that they were quite correct. The only question is whether we can fix the system before we become corporate serfs in all but name.

 

[nyctopgam]

Except it isn't acceptable to Americans. The vast majority think the bankers that did this to us belong in prison, probably permanently.

Vast majority? I doubt that. Not that I disagree with your POV. If it were as you say, the oligarchy would not be in place. We are a consumerist rightwing society. Our values don't support what you say we need to do. We don't really care as long as we shop and live off the fat of the land. There. I said it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Vast majority? I doubt that. Not that I disagree with your POV. If it were as you say, the oligarchy would not be in place. We are a consumerist rightwing society. Our values don't support what you say we need to do. We don't really care as long as we shop and live off the fat of the land. There. I said it.

Our elected "representatives" regularly act contrary to what 80% or more of the people want. There's a simple reason for this: we the people only get to choose from among candidates acceptable to the corporate power structure -- that's the "primary" election that really counts,the one where the 0.1% wealthiest among us decide which candidates are acceptable.

 

[Willie Boy]

Even in an extreme capitalist system like the US, certain state supported systems are spared from the "Private Is Better" ideology (or mantra or propaganda as you will). Like pure research which results in the internet, medicines and space travel for instance. It is then turned over or taken for free by the private sector to develop into product to market.

IS that why researchers are always looking for funding from wealthy investors? Granted, the government does offer some funding grants (military weapons spending and such), but for the most part it is all paid for by private investors or, if possible (rarely), the researcher's own pocket.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

so
_serfs aye_
wot a new

ha

tinku

 

[nyctopgam]

IS that why researchers are always looking for funding from wealthy investors? Granted, the government does offer some funding grants (military weapons spending and such), but for the most part it is all paid for by private investors or, if possible (rarely), the researcher's own pocket.

Or to flip your comment, is that why researchers and universities are always looking for and writing grant proposals to government agencies? Granted, wealthy investors do offer some funding grants (internet startups and such), but for the most part pure research is all paid for by government sources...

Anyone have comparative stats? Too lazy to google.

 

[nyctopgam]

Our elected "representatives" regularly act contrary to what 80% or more of the people want. There's a simple reason for this: we the people only get to choose from among candidates acceptable to the corporate power structure --

Ungenerous of me I suppose, but that the 80% put up with this system I see as acceptance on their part. After all it's been going on a long long time. I would say they have other things they consider more important on their minds.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

IS that why researchers are always looking for funding from wealthy investors? Granted, the government does offer some funding grants (military weapons spending and such), but for the most part it is all paid for by private investors or, if possible (rarely), the researcher's own pocket.

They do look for it now, and quite often to the detriment of their research (loads of researchers having to take loads of lectures on how to commercialize their research) , but this is only because the governments of the western world have stopped funding anything since the 1980s. Knowledge for knowledges sake is now no longer wanted, despite it being behind most of the biggest develops in human history.

 

[thewiz]

Ungenerous of me I suppose, but that the 80% put up with this system I see as acceptance on their part. After all it's been going on a long long time. I would say they have other things they consider more important on their minds.

In relation to the thread, I think the reason 80% have tolerated the old system is because it was "out of sight; out of mind." The employer paid for health care premiums and there was no incentive to shop. There was no incentive on the part of providers to be cost effective for insurance companies simply sent the check. And for those that were uninsured, the insured or those with cash simply covered the cost.

Introducing the market through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) suddenly exposed people to actual costs. Those having to go to the market place for the first time actually had to read their policy, shop around for plans, and see what the monthly costs are. I remember when we first began providing our employees a "true cost of employment" sheet nearly 18 years ago. The first scream we heard is, "I don't really make that much." When we conducted education sessions, employees were totally ignorant of the fact that the city paid $1,200 per month for a family's health insurance; employees viewed it magically dropping from the heavens (mind you that same cost is far higher today).

That effort led to employees actually engaging BC-BS and the two PPO/HMO's operating in our area. We reduced the monthly premium cost while improving the services offered (moving from simple reaction to one of wellness care). We also eliminated insurance being provided to employees by the city after retirement and instead invested a fixed dollar amount into a 401(k) plan which was the employee's to manage or take with them if they left the city before retirement.

It is amazing that when we arm people with knowledge what their reaction might be. In the case of Republicans today, it seems to be a battle with a party of no arms.

 

[Benvolio]

Kj

Except it isn't acceptable to Americans. The vast majority think the bankers that did this to us belong in prison, probably permanently. The majority of Americans think that "too big to fail" means they should be broken into pieces small enough that if they fail it doesn't matter. The majority of Americans believe that if a business screws up, it should be allowed to die.

Most of our Founding Fathers saw large corporations as dangerous to liberty. We're finding that they were quite correct. The only question is whether we can fix the system before we become corporate serfs in all but name.

Sorry, kul, in this country, we don't send people to the pen unless they violate a criminal law. We don't take polls to see who the people want to send to jail.