Healthcare going forward

[Kulindahr]

@ Benvolio

You know that this kind of post only deserves a huge 'Go Fuck Yourself'. But I won't do that.

The Canadian medical research and health care delivery institutions aren't relying on the US for all of our treatments or drugs or anything else. Again, this just shows your staggering, arrogant ignorance about international health care. It must be so incredibly limiting to persist in this.

As a matter of fact, it was actually some European (French and German) haematologists who were consulted during my treatment and care and I would also note that Canadian medical research, particularly in cancer care and haematology is also used in the US. My own Haematologist delivered a paper in the US during the course of my treatment on his findings on isolating genetic factors....medicine is a global endeavour....not just a few American companies creating everything as you persist in thinking.

My sister recently died of a brain tumor, despite the fact that research in other countries has shown how it could be treated and possibly eliminated. But in the U.S., thanks to a great degree to the lobbying from U.S. medical companies, those treatments aren't allowed. More recently, a friend also died from a brain tumor, and again it was U.S. meddling medical companies lobbyists who supported laws keeping him from getting useful treatment. And along the way, both her and his medications could have been gotten cheaper, except for the fact that U.S. companies had gotten laws placed that kept that from happening.

My older brother died of what started as melanoma. Based on treatments available in the U.S., he was given six months to live when diagnosed -- but thanks to treatments developed elsewhere, adopted by his doctors on an "experimental" basis, he made it eleven years.

All around me I see the results of the system Ben champions: less accessibility to care, lower quality care, higher costs... and a lot of wasted time by bureaucrats bouncing bundles of bullshit back and forth in pursuit of seeing how little they could get away with paying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's some insight into the dumb fuck ignorance of Republican voters when it comes to health care.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/americans-voting-for-cuts-1.4055389

Good article except for the assertion about free markets -- free markets are the best way to get everyone what they want, and always have been, because they transmit honest information about what is wanted and what is available every time there's a purchase.

The problem is that no place on earth has a free market... and the other problem is that when today's GOP says "free market" they mean "corporate plutocracy". So if the writer is using the GOP's de facto definition, he's right on target: such an arrangement gets things right only when it increases the wealth of the plutocrats.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pay attention. I was responding to claims that insurance companies collect premiums and pay out very little. In fact, most ot what they collect in premiums is paid out on claims.

In fact, most of what they don't pay out they should. Having to pay out 80% is a joke -- it could be 90% if they were actually dedicated to providing medical coverage.

That's why Congress should fund incentives for the establishment of large, national not-for-profit insurance companies: the ones that exist all have administrative costs in the single digits, so they pay out better than 90%. The competition might just make honest folk out of the pirates running the big insurance companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

Employment is a contract and workers are only entitled to what they agree to recieved and whatever else the law requires.

In a world without greed and bigotry that would work.

But it will never work in your world, because it's based on exalting greed and bigotry.

 

[gsdx]

But in the U.S., thanks to a great degree to the lobbying from U.S. medical companies, those treatments aren't allowed.

I wonder who lobbied the government to get the Kinder Surprise eggs banned?

 

[KaraBulut]

Americans have never wanted socialism/communism. It was not built by beggars and thieves, but by people who believed in hard work and that it it was a disgrace to accept charity or to live off welfare.

...America was largely founded on the low paid labour of slaves or near slaves including the blacks, the Chinese and the Mexicans...it was only in the era from the 1930's to the Reagan era when workers really actually saw their hard labour translate into a healthy middle class society.

The fiction of the hard-working American is a 20th century invention. The reality is that slaves, indentured servants and immigrants did most of the hard labor in early America. The "sloth" and "laziness" of the English poor in the 17th and 18th century was solved by arresting them and deporting them to the Americas.

By 1770, fewer than 10 percent of white Virginians laid claim to over half the land in the colony; a small upper echelon of large planters each owned slaves in the hundreds. More than half of white men owned no land at all, working as tenants or hired laborers, or contracted as servants.

Some stats from the 1860 census:
Total population of Alabama: 964,201 number of slaves:435,080
Total population of Georgia: 1,057,286 number of slaves:462,198
Total population of Mississippi: 791,305 number of slaves: 436,631
Total population of Texas: 604,215 number of slaves: 182,566
Total population of Virginia: 1,596,318 number of slaves: 490,865
Source

And the fiction of the "noble hard-working American" doesn't agree with historical quotes from the period....
From 1711, Captain John Barnwell speaking of white North Carolinans:

...cowardly Blockheads that ever God created and must be used like negros in you expect any good of them

From Benjamin Franklin:

White Children become proud, disgusted with Labour, and being educated in Idleness, are rendered unfit to get a Living by Industry".

From complaints by William Byrd in 1726:

"...poor white laboring men learned to despise labor and would rather steal than work in the fields..."

From Charles Woodmason, an Anglican minister:

"lazy, licentious", "drunken working men and women", "poorest excuses for British settlers", "foolish enough to argue over a turd", "sluttish", "irreligious", "indolent", "immoral"

And from discussions about white people in 1819:

"...Educated observers feared social disorder particularly after the panic of 1819, which political writers proeducted in the West a 'numerous, poulation, in a state of wretchedness'. Increasing numbers of poor settlers and uneducated squatters were 'ripe for treason and spoil'"

 

[Benvolio]

The fiction of the hard-working American is a 20th century invention. The reality is that slaves, indentured servants and immigrants did most of the hard labor in early America. The "sloth" and "laziness" of the English poor in the 17th and 18th century was solved by arresting them and deporting them to the Americas.


Some stats from the 1860 census:
Total population of Alabama: 964,201 number of slaves:435,080
Total population of Georgia: 1,057,286 number of slaves:462,198
Total population of Mississippi: 791,305 number of slaves: 436,631
Total population of Texas: 604,215 number of slaves: 182,566
Total population of Virginia: 1,596,318 number of slaves: 490,865
Source

And the fiction of the "noble hard-working American" doesn't agree with historical quotes from the period....
From 1711, Captain John Barnwell speaking of white North Carolinans:

From Benjamin Franklin:

From complaints by William Byrd in 1726:

From Charles Woodmason, an Anglican minister:


And from discussions about white people in 1819:

Your slave numbers are only from the agricultural south. The north was built by whites as they expanded the frontier from the costal areas west past the Mississippi in less than a century, clearing the land and building cities and towns. You can find criticisms of the whites, but you would find even nastier criticisms of the blacks. The North, including the industries were built by white labor with little help.

 

[ballcaphair]

Your slave numbers are only from the agricultural south. The north was built by whites as they expanded the frontier from the costal areas west past the Mississippi in less than a century, clearing the land and building cities and towns. You can find criticisms of the whites, but you would find even nastier criticisms of the blacks. The North, including the industries were built by white labor with little help.

There is a broad sweeping generalization. I believe slaves were delivered to the colonies. Our founding fathers owned slaves and their push was primarily to the west by southwest. I cannot imagine Ben Franklin building his own roads, or felling his own trees. There is more to our history than cotton. A black roommate in Chicago followed his family roots around Lake Michigan. They were primarily stone masons, two generations they were owned as property. I think it's a stretch to think blacks in the north were"immigrants."

 

[rareboy]

Your slave numbers are only from the agricultural south. The north was built by whites as they expanded the frontier from the costal areas west past the Mississippi in less than a century, clearing the land and building cities and towns. You can find criticisms of the whites, but you would find even nastier criticisms of the blacks. The North, including the industries were built by white labor with little help.

The 'white labour' that built the north was more often than not indentured servitude. And many of the 'whites' you refer to weren't considered 'white' when they first arrived to do the heavy lifting. Europeans and Irish were often considered to be almost sub-human and were exploited to the greatest degree possible. It was only because of the theft of a continent from the aboriginals that it was possible for early settlers to rise out of their near slavery and stake claims on farmland, timberland, minerals etc. etc. and then they literally bred themselves a free workforce over the next three generations.

But this is all a distraction and derailment of the thread.

 

[Kabluey]

The 'white labour' that built the north was more often than not indentured servitude. And many of the 'whites' you refer to weren't considered 'white' when they first arrived to do the heavy lifting. Europeans and Irish were often considered to be almost sub-human and were exploited to the greatest degree possible...

You're talking to someone who has an intense dislike of Catholics and Jewish people.

It's not hard to see where this thinking originates from.

 

[KaraBulut]

There is a broad sweeping generalization. I believe slaves were delivered to the colonies. Our founding fathers owned slaves and their push was primarily to the west by southwest. I cannot imagine Ben Franklin building his own roads, or felling his own trees. There is more to our history than cotton. A black roommate in Chicago followed his family roots around Lake Michigan. They were primarily stone masons, two generations they were owned as property. I think it's a stretch to think blacks in the north were"immigrants."

It depends on your definition of "slavery". What most modern people equate to slavery is involuntary servitude of the African Americans. That's only part of the picture. In the 18th century, many of the immigrants to the Americans came here on indenture contracts- basically, their master paid for their passage and in exchange, they worked for room and board with little or no paid wages for a period of time. This was another type of voluntary slavery. There's a quote in the linked Wikipedia article that puts indentured servitude in context:

Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures.

Interesting factoid: indenture contracts were binding on entire families. If a man signed an indenture contract and died before completing the contract, his wife and children were required to complete the contract.

There was also another category of involuntary servitude called Penal Transportation. The lower classes in the British Isles were often given severe sentences for relatively minor crimes. When the prisons began to fill up, the British sent their convicts to the Americas- often under involuntary indenture contracts. There are plenty of stories about orphans and children living on the streets being kidnapped from England who were sold into servitude and transported to the Americas.

So, bring this back to topic...

The idea that universal healthcare is socialism that takes money from white people to transfer it to minorities is not accurate- either historically or in its current incarnation. For most of the early history of the United States, there were four groups of people- the very wealthy, the working class, the poor and slaves. The concept of a "middle class" is something that is more of a 20th century phenomenon- with the development of an educated professional class and the move of unskilled labor from rural America into urban areas and factory towns.

The idea of modern health insurance began with trade unions in the latter part of the 19th century, mostly as a way to insure against accidental injury and death. The third party insurance companies as we know them today developed during the Great Depression as hospitals that were hurting for money and trade unions like the AFL and CIO developed what became the Blue Cross network. After World War II, employers began offering health insurance as an employment benefit.

This led the current situation of having health insurance linked heavily to employers and unions in the US. It's still how most Americans under age 65 get health insurance. And because of labor shortages and competition between unions and non-union corporations, the majority of the cost of employee health insurance is paid by the union or the employer. A typical employee might pay $100 per month for insurance; the union or employer is likely paying $400-500 remaining cost for the policy.

This left the lower classes and part-time workers without insurance. The Medicaid system sought to address some of the issue but the means testing for Medicaid meant that only those in extreme poverty, particular those who were unable to work, could get Medicaid. The "working poor" who worked but did qualify for health insurance benefits were not covered by Medicaid.

What the ACA did was create two additional vehicles to people to get health insurance- expanded Medicaid and a new individual health insurance market.

Whether Americans have insurance through a employer-sponsored group health plan or through a Medicaid/ACA plans, it is socialization of risk. The difference is that employers are paying the majority of cost for employer-based heath insurance; with Medicaid and the ACA plans, the federal government pays most of the cost.

 

[Benvolio]

It depends on your definition of "slavery". What most modern people equate to slavery is involuntary servitude of the African Americans. That's only part of the picture. In the 18th century, many of the immigrants to the Americans came here on indenture contracts- basically, their master paid for their passage and in exchange, they worked for room and board with little or no paid wages for a period of time. This was another type of voluntary slavery. There's a quote in the linked Wikipedia article that puts indentured servitude in context:


Interesting factoid: indenture contracts were binding on entire families. If a man signed an indenture contract and died before completing the contract, his wife and children were required to complete the contract.

There was also another category of involuntary servitude called Penal Transportation. The lower classes in the British Isles were often given severe sentences for relatively minor crimes. When the prisons began to fill up, the British sent their convicts to the Americas- often under involuntary indenture contracts. There are plenty of stories about orphans and children living on the streets being kidnapped from England who were sold into servitude and transported to the Americas.

So, bring this back to topic...

The idea that universal healthcare is socialism that takes money from white people to transfer it to minorities is not accurate- either historically or in its current incarnation. For most of the early history of the United States, there were four groups of people- the very wealthy, the working class, the poor and slaves. The concept of a "middle class" is something that is more of a 20th century phenomenon- with the development of an educated professional class and the move of unskilled labor from rural America into urban areas and factory towns.

The idea of modern health insurance began with trade unions in the latter part of the 19th century, mostly as a way to insure against accidental injury and death. The third party insurance companies as we know them today developed during the Great Depression as hospitals that were hurting for money and trade unions like the AFL and CIO developed what became the Blue Cross network. After World War II, employers began offering health insurance as an employment benefit.

This led the current situation of having health insurance linked heavily to employers and unions in the US. It's still how most Americans under age 65 get health insurance. And because of labor shortages and competition between unions and non-union corporations, the majority of the cost of employee health insurance is paid by the union or the employer. A typical employee might pay $100 per month for insurance; the union or employer is likely paying $400-500 remaining cost for the policy.

This left the lower classes and part-time workers without insurance. The Medicaid system sought to address some of the issue but the means testing for Medicaid meant that only those in extreme poverty, particular those who were unable to work, could get Medicaid. The "working poor" who worked but did qualify for health insurance benefits were not covered by Medicaid.

What the ACA did was create two additional vehicles to people to get health insurance- expanded Medicaid and a new individual health insurance market.

Whether Americans have insurance through a employer-sponsored group health plan or through a Medicaid/ACA plans, it is socialization of risk. The difference is that employers are paying the majority of cost for employer-based heath insurance; with Medicaid and the ACA plans, the federal government pays most of the cost.

Indentured servitude is not involuntary. On the contrary, it is voluntary as a way to pay for the passage over. They were paid in advance for their work. Equating it with slavery or condemning the employer significantly distorts the facts.
You discussion of the history of health care does not change the fact that in the US, universal coverage would be designed to be paid from income tax paid by a relatively few and decreasing number of Americans. Americans who now have health insurance would see their health care degraded by the change, with long waiting periods and shortages, even as more beneficiaries are brought in. Funding it with a national sales tax or value added tax would be short lived as the democrats will always find ways to benefit their electorate to the maximum extent possible.

 

[rareboy]

Once again...it doesn't have to be simply borne by personal income tax. It doesn't have to become the 'white man's burden', if this makes you feel any better.


I don't understand why you are somehow intellectually incapable of grasping this simplest of facts.

 

[gsdx]

Your slave numbers are only from the agricultural south. The north was built by whites as they expanded the frontier from the costal areas west past the Mississippi in less than a century, clearing the land and building cities and towns. You can find criticisms of the whites, but you would find even nastier criticisms of the blacks. The North, including the industries were built by white labor with little help.

There is a broad sweeping generalization. I believe slaves were delivered to the colonies.

The 'white labour' that built the north was more often than not indentured servitude.

Benvolio knows very little about history. Slavery is not a 'southern' thing.

He doesn't know how American history is entwined so intricately with British, French, and Canadian history. He doesn't know that slavery came along with the British and French settlers. He doesn't know that there were slaves in Canada as well. He doesn't know that the northern states also had slavery. He doesn't know that Britain and Canada abolished slavery in the early 1830s. He doesn't know that the northern states also abolished slavery. Heck, that's what that whole 'Civil War' thing was all about.

He doesn't know that both Canada and the United States were built on the backs of slaves.

No wonder Benvolio hates welfare and immigrants. With slaves, you just pay for them once and they do what you want them to do. And you can sell them if you want to if they don't make you enough money.

Racism is alive and well in the United States because it is allowed to exist. There are still a great many Americans who think that slavery should still exist, that it is their right to 'own people'.

 

[Benvolio]

Once again...it doesn't have to be simply borne by personal income tax. It doesn't have to become the 'white man's burden', if this makes you feel any better.


I don't understand why you are somehow intellectually incapable of grasping this simplest of facts.

You don't understand the democrat party. The democrats will inevitably work to shift the burden to existing taxpayers, to the maximum extent possible. It does not have to be that way, but it will be, no matter how it is initially designed. What ever is passed this year will but just the foot in the door.

 

[rareboy]

Clueless. Totally clueless.

But as I noted, the US seems totally incapable of figuring out how to do it. Even though it is the simplest thing on earth.

And I also don't get why you are still harping on about the Democrats.

News alert.

The GOP controls the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.

They should be able to do whatever they godamned well please.

But it is utterly clear that out of all those people....after more than 7 years....they have no clue either.

You are all fucked.

 

[gsdx]

You don't understand the democrat party. The democrats will inevitably work to shift the burden to existing taxpayers, to the maximum extent possible.

Except Trump. He doesn't give a shit what happens to you. He doesn't pay taxes.

You keep forgetting that.

 

[Benvolio]

Clueless. Totally clueless.

But as I noted, the US seems totally incapable of figuring out how to do it. Even though it is the simplest thing on earth.

And I also don't get why you are still harping on about the Democrats.

News alert.

The GOP controls the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.

They should be able to do whatever they godamned well please.

But it is utterly clear that out of all those people....after more than 7 years....they have no clue either.

You are all fucked.

Some day the dems will come pack into power and will change any system to benefit their electorate.

 

[rareboy]

And that is relevant to the GOP designing a health care system how?

Face it. Trump lied. There is no health care plan...the White House never put a thing forward, even though Trump kept promising that it was coming.

The GOP in the House and Senate is utterly incapable of developing a health care plan as well.

Obamacare's worst flaw is that it doesn't have a public option and still left coverage in the hands of rapacious insurers.

As I said...you are all fucked.

 

[ballcaphair]

Some day the dems will come pack into power and will change any system to benefit their electorate.

Ben, Since you keep posting broad brushes to this whole mess, here's one from me: America's governmental landscape is bipolar and dissociated. Period. I will not defend it. I will not explain it. I will not perpetuate it. I will become informed and engaged.