UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
The Susan G. Komen foundation has cut funding from Planned Parenthood citing it's current investigation into alleged use of Federal Funds in performing abortions. While Komen maintains that this was not a political decision pushed by Anti-Abortionist and conservative ideology, their newly hired VP, Karen Handel, who was endorsed by both Mit Romney and Sarah Palin, and had advocated for the pulling of funding into planned parenthood during her race for governor of the state of Georgia before joining the Komen Foundation.
Outrage over the decision has been expressed heavily over the past few days on social networking sites and in the media. Many people have expressed that they will no longer donate to Komen, but instead have directed their donations to Planned Parenthood. In the past few days, Planned Parenthood has seen a huge spike in donations that have almost exceeded the entire funding from Susan Komen in 2011.
Komen had recently implemented a new policy that they do not support organizations that are being investigated by the government. The government investigation was started as a reaction by Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest, who wrote a report about Planned Parenthood. Yoest was worked for Mike Huckabee and The Family Research Council. When asked about the decision she said,
Quote: “I have to say, it was some of the best news of my entire life,” “We’re so used to seeing Planned Parenthood succeed at defining themselves as the trendy place to be, and for Komen to make such a smart decision in recognizing the reality behind Planned Parenthood spin,” she adds. “As a breast cancer survivor, I was always troubled with this whole idea that the nation’s largest abortion provider was enmeshed in the breast cancer fight when they weren’t actually doing mammograms. I look at this as smart stewardship.”
Political decision? My opinion is yes. Cancer knows no politics. It doesn't care if you have 20 kids or have had 20 abortions. This IS about abortions whether you like to think it or not, and this IS a political move, spawned by political pressures. Many of the women I have talked to about this are appalled at the decision. While most of us here are men, I think it says something when around 75% of people surveyed (Don't ask me to quote this, I saw it on CNN), believe that Komen made a horrible decision. Not to mention the outcry and spike in support for Planned Parenthood. Abortions only count for a very small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does for women. Breast cancer detection and awareness, as well as feminine health issues not including abortion account for the majority of what Planned Parenthood offers women, especially those who cannot afford healthcare.
mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
I've been giving to the Susan Komen foundation for over five years.
This year I'll be donating directly to Planned Parenthood - to their breast screening fund AND to their general fund.
I've received quite an education about the Komen foundation from several of my female friends. Don't like their balance sheet much. After hefty salaries, travel expenses and promotions are paid for, there's about 20% left over for actual research.
It's too bad the religious right is fixed on this take-no-prisoners approach. Apparently all they care about is ideological purity. Perhaps it was time to dispense with this bloated foundation anyway, but it's such a shame they would take actions they know will adversely affect charitable donations toward such an important cause.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
Don't care. They are a private foundation, they can fund (or not fund) whoever they want.
If it were an organization that received contributions that are sucked out of contributors by coercion, (government, unions in non-Right-to-work states), then it would be a different story. then it would be a question of why are they funding PP in the first place.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2): I say it's her money and she can do as she wishes with it.
Actually it is a very large pile of contributions from around the country that was supposed to go towards research and care. So it is not "her" money.
'
The donations from the FOundation to Planned Parenthood was going to mammograms for women who can't afford the costs. About 170,000 women over the past 5 years.
I guess the Foundations new policy is for the poor to simply "die fast".
Overall I believe that the Foundation has gone from a very good thing to something that is becoming all about money, not breast cancer or the women at risk.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1): I've received quite an education about the Komen foundation from several of my female friends. Don't like their balance sheet much. After hefty salaries, travel expenses and promotions are paid for, there's about 20% left over for actual research.
Not to paraphrase Doc but I do feel a lot like he does on this subject. Feel free to correct me DL if I we disagree. The Komen foundation carries a huge overhead in administrative fees that most non-profits don't. Breast cancer isn't even the #1 cause of death among women, lung cancer is, but it receives a disproportionate amount of donations when compared to other causes.
SGK also trademarked the use of words like "cure" and "for the cure" and is very litigious when it comes to the use of pink in fundraising. My wife participated in some of their events and its obvious how much money is spent to organize and run them.
In the end, it is their money. They aren't a public entity and can spend it how they wish. I'm just not convinced that SGK does as much as they could with the money and emotion they collect. One could make the very same argument about the Livestrong organization.
Take a look at the National Cancer Institute funding by type of cancer and tell me what we should be raising money for, and this is just public funding, private side funding of breast cancer research is much more lopsided:
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2): I say it's her money and she can do as she wishes with it. Rather simple.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3): Don't care. They are a private foundation, they can fund (or not fund) whoever they want.
While you are correct, no one should care, it's easier to say that for a company who makes their own profits rather than one that relies and receives almost entirely, donations from private individuals who feel strongly (especially females) that planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health. Many women who are donors are seeing this as a political move and, for lack of a better word, are disgusted by it. Komen also donates (though I'm not sure to what capacity) to several other agencies which are under federal investigation but have not extinguished funding. When you have people donating money, it's harder to challenge with "I don't care they are a private organization" than if you rely entirely on donors. Even if that weren't the case, imagine if Apple said, "The iPhone will only be sold to those identifying as white males in their 20's."
Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 5): She's dead! What are you talking about?
Fine, it's her foundations money. The fact remains that they can use the donations as they wish. If others are so up in arms about them no longer supporting PP, they can do as you do and donate directly to planned parenthood.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): While you are correct, no one should care, it's easier to say that for a company who makes their own profits rather than one that relies and receives almost entirely, donations from private individuals who feel strongly (especially females) that planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health
They can do what they want. I am myself pro-choice, but I find it funny how the left has embraced an organization founded by a raging racist who established her organization for the specific purpose of reducing the Black population through free abortion and, when they could manage it voluntarily or not, sterilization.
Quote: Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Well 1: the charity can do what it wants
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Here we go again, the abortion industrial complex getting their panties in a twist about a non-issue. Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions. I guess that now since ACORN is out of the picture the left needs a new rallying cry and they don't care who they are.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health
An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): The donations from the FOundation to Planned Parenthood was going to mammograms for women who can't afford the costs. About 170,000 women over the past 5 years.
I guess the Foundations new policy is for the poor to simply "die fast".
So you either a) did not read about the part where the Foundation said the money would be used instead to pay directly to the clinics performing the actual mammograms (Planned Parenthood does not have the necessary equipment, if it is not a hose attached to a vacuum cleaner they couldn't care less about it) or b) did read it and are deliberately misrepresenting them to score cheap political points. I will wager my bet on which one...
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1): I've been giving to the Susan Komen foundation for over five years.
This year I'll be donating directly to Planned Parenthood
Ok, so at least you admit you don't care about breast cancer screening, your main issue is free abortions for everyone.
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 6): Breast cancer isn't even the #1 cause of death among women, lung cancer is, but it receives a disproportionate amount of donations when compared to other causes.
Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too). And frankly, this day and age lung cancer is almost 100% preventable - if you are stupid enough to keep smoking with all the information that has been out there on the topic for decades, then maybe it is just Darwin's way of saying you shouldn't be breeding. Have destroyed too many good clothes with the stench of tobacco just for entering a bar to feel any sympathy for smokers, sorry.
Funny, I am against abortion but can't help but wondering how much faster the slip of the U.S. into socialism would have been without Planned Parenthood. Maybe they are just buying us some crucial time. Now where did I put my check-book?
I would like to thank all the MSM that created this storm in a tea-cup for bringing this to my attention, though. I was looking around for ways to spend some more money in charity and was thinking about spending my entire tax refund to support the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation and the Institute for Justice (somehow just seemed like an appropriate use of proceeds) but I might just set aside some money for Komen too.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions.
Obviously, you've never been to a PP, and never known anyone that's used their services. Nice try, though.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): I was looking around for ways to spend some more money in charity and was thinking about spending my entire tax refund to support the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation and the Institute for Justice (somehow just seemed like an appropriate use of proceeds) but I might just set aside some money for Komen too.
I notice the lack of the Salvation Army in that list. Maybe you should research stuff more before going all boneheaded about it.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1476 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Umm, buddy, Abortions are a VERY small percentage that Planned Parenthood does for women's health. I suggest you look up what that small percentage is, and while you're at it, look up what funding from Komen has gone towards in the past in terms of Planned Parenthood and get back to me. Such and idiot and ill-informed statement you just made. The money that Komen gave to Planned Parenthood went directly to supplying women of no means to pay for breast exams, ultrasounds, and general education about breast health and reproductive health. The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood is a very small percentage of all the wonderful services they provide women who have less than adequate means or money to pay for the simple things they need to be healthy women, including breast cancer screenings. Get your facts straight before making some politically charged statement about Planned Parenthood and what they actually do.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 11864 posts, RR: 67 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 13): Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions.
Obviously, you've never been to a PP, and never known anyone that's used their services. Nice try, though.
I'm not ashamed to admit that back in my promiscuous, fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants days I used PP's services for HIV testing. While there - and mind you, I'm definitely pro-choice - I couldn't help but notice how much of their material was geared seemingly toward abortions, almost like they advocated that.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
To me the core problem is as the Komen Foundation has come to rely mainly on fees from licensing it's trademarks from corporations who in turn do not want hassles from even a tiny number of anti-abortion/'pro-life' customers who do not want any funding for any organization, especially Planned Parenthood, that supports legal abortion.
This conflict also raises a number of other issues including access to health care, providers and their history, morality, religion/faith and their groups, how not-for-profit groups operate, IP rights, politics, corporate power and others all well discussed here and elsewhere.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
The basis of judgement with regard to health issues shouldn't be what some people assume about a procedure. Especially if it's only a small percentage* of Planned Parenthood's business and that Planned Parenthood is a such a key source of health care for certain subsets of women. The Komen Foundation's stated mission is breast cancer health, and by extension women's health, and Planned Parenthood provides that.
*Last I heard, 3%, but, full disclosure, that number came from the chairwoman of the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress, and there's a chance that, like Senator Jon Kyl's number on the same issue, "it wasn't intended to be factual."
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10022 posts, RR: 54 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter): While Komen maintains that this was not a political decision pushed by Anti-Abortionist and conservative ideology, their newly hired VP, Karen Handel, who was endorsed by both Mit Romney and Sarah Palin, and had advocated for the pulling of funding into planned parenthood during her race for governor of the state of Georgia before joining the Komen Foundation.
Why look at Karen Handel? Look at its founder and CEO! Nancy Brinker (Susan G. Komen's surviving sister) is a frequent political appointee by the Republican Party, going back to Reagan. She even has the title "Ambassador" due to her appointment as The Honorable United States Ambassador to Hungary.
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 8): The fact remains that they can use the donations as they wish.
No, I don't think that's quite right. This foundation (as shitty as it is) had put itself out as one that will funnel funds to research and treatment of breast diseases. It is not their money to use as they please.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too)
Smokers pay a pretty stiff tax for their sins so the governments already have user based funding to treat them. Maybe add another 50¢ to $1 in tobacco taxes if more money for treatment is needed.
Same with alcoholics, which is a disease. Add a $1 to a fifth to self fund their treatment.
And, of course, we have diabetics which is where the big time, long term treatment costs come into play for taxpayers. That indicates that we need to put a self funding tax on sugar and other products that lead to diabetes. And a tax on products that promote over consumption. Like the "Big Gulp" instead of a normal drink.
The money from the Diabetics Self Funding can also be use to bring back Physical Education to schools. Help pay so we can make it mandatory. Minimum would be Aerobics For Fat Kids. But make it fun. Start off slow, eliminate Doctors Letters, etc. ANd toss in some Fat Kids Education ever week.
All that self funding can address medical issuers related to consumption.
Now we need to address medical issues NOT related to consumption and Breast Cancer is a major one. THe help provided by PP and others is critical as they address the need for screening and education that SHOULD be done in a core care government program.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue.
Does not mean it is NOT a health issue either.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Ok, so at least you admit you don't care about breast cancer screening, your main issue is free abortions for everyone.
Easy way to address the issue - provide core level health care as a universal right for all Americans.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too).
We can self fund cancer treatments through self funding treatment taxes.
But breast cancer is not something that is caused by consumption.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Funny, I am against abortion
Really?
I don't "support" abortion as I find it horrid. Far, far better to distribute birth control (including the morning after pill) and have strong sex education for kids before they are old enough to get pregnant.
I also support women being given the choice because of rape, incest, or other equally difficult choices.
ANd I support it when the woman's life is in danger. A good example was a women about 3 months pregnant diagnosed with one of the blood cancers. No options for her. It was straight to the hospital, a fast termination of the pregnancy and immediate commencement of chemo. The poison used as chemo was obviously going to kill the fetus and not going on chemo was going to kill the mother BEFORE she could take the baby to a point where a C-Section was possible.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 13): I notice the lack of the Salvation Army in that list.
Or John 3.16
Or a kids hospital like St. Jude's
Or the local food bank
Or Disabled Vets
Or a very long list of important charities that need help.
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
The basis of judgement with regard to health issues shouldn't be what some people assume about a procedure. Especially if it's only a small percentage* of Planned Parenthood's business and that Planned Parenthood is a such a key source of health care for certain subsets of women. The Komen Foundation's stated mission is breast cancer health, and by extension women's health, and Planned Parenthood provides that.
Well to each's own. I have many charities I'd give to before PP, but if I was in the position to give to them, I wouldn't give one cent that could potentially go towards abortion. But:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 19): Planned Parenthood has created a donation space on their website just for breast cancer screening.
This is good. I'd support this. IMO (and probably not to many others) if they're gonna supply abortions, they should separate funding for that and have no government assistance in that capacity. That way any donations to the 'abortion fund' or whatever would be given by people supporting abortion and my tax money wouldn't be going to that (I don't think it does now but I wouldn't like it in the future.) And yes, I am aware that PP is a wonderful organization besides the abortion part (IMO)
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3386 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
What Komen was trying to do is take planned parenthood out as the middle man. In other words, the money that was donated to the Komen foundation for breast cancer screening and prevention would have been donated to planned parenthood first and then allegedly for breast screening. By sending the money directly to the providers (Remember PP doesn't do mammograms, as Lila Rose has revealed through undercover work), this ensures that the money is being used for what its intended for.
I am not a fan of PP at all for various reasons. But the thing that astounds me is that people claim that if you don't donate to them, you are anti woman. I am anything but anti woman. Most of the services that are provided by PP can be obtained at other locations, namely community health centers, and these all help the same poor women that PP helps. But yet the way PP talks, they have a monopoly on women's health care, and a lot of powerful people on the left back them up on this as well. But they have many people so brainwashed these days that this looks to be true. And while I am going to keep the abortion debate to a minimum, Abortion may be only 3 percent of the services they provide, but it makes up about 37 percent of their total revenue. Unfortunately its a very lucrative business, and money talks. I would never give a dime to this organization, and I do believe they manipulate their books to hide the truth. It's an organization that is ripe with corruption. I recommend everyone watch the movie Blood Money, and read the book Unplanned, by Abby Johnson, as these explain it better than I can in a post.
As for the SGK foundation, I don't know whether to trust them or not. It is obvious there was a lot of political motivations here, and their statements later on didn't help matters. And the fact that there is a lot of Overhead at this organization makes me very suspicious on that end. I don't know, and until this is all sorted out, they won't get a dime from me either.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): IMO (and probably not to many others) if they're gonna supply abortions, they should separate funding for that and have no government assistance in that capacity
This might already be the case, not completely sure. It's a position that makes sense, at least.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 25, posted (3 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): Overall I believe that the Foundation has gone from a very good thing to something that is becoming all about money, not breast cancer or the women at risk.
Let me get one thing straight: For the last decade at least, and probably longer, SGK has been about NOTHING BUT money. Less than 30% of their funds actually went to research on finding a cure. So Susan G. Komen "For the Cure" was a bunch of BS to begin with.
From Wikipedia for 2010:
Fundraising costs: 10%
Administrative costs 11.3%
Research 20.9% (get it? They spend more on fundraising and administration than they do on research)
Public Health Education (read: marketing) 39.1%
Screening and treatment: 18.6% (Screening 13%, treatment 5.6%)
Does this sound like an organization that is actually looking for a cure?
Now, as it happens, SGK has reversed their decision today. I don't care. They are a marketing firm that happens to be nonprofit. And they market CANCER. Meanwhile, corporations left and right have jumped on the bandwagon. Yoplait is one of the more egregious, giving 10c per yoplait lid that gets sent in (up to some limit they have). It's absurd.
During Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I donate to the research centers that actually do research into REAL CURES. Memorial Sloan Kettering. UCSF. Stanford. University of Michigan (my medical school alma mater). Etc.
And about "awareness," is there anyone over the age of 12 who isn't aware of breast cancer? We don't need to raise awareness because awareness is at about 100%. Maybe there are some people in Afghanistan who haven't heard of breast cancer, but anywhere where there is media penetration is aware of breast cancer. So there isn't a need for spending 40% of their budget on "education" (read: a bunch of pinkwashed marketing for SGK). What we need is CURES for the advanced and currently untreatable forms of breast cancer. That takes RESEARCH, not "education."
In fact, a cure would be a disaster for SGK. They'd fold! So advocating a cure is actually against their interest.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): IMO (and probably not to many others) if they're gonna supply abortions, they should separate funding for that and have no government assistance in that capacity.
They do not. No federal funds may be used for abortion. That has been the law for a LONG time. The Right would have you think that this is about abortion, and to some degree it is. But it REALLY is about poor women who don't deserve to live because they've made bad choices in their lives. And as a physician who is sworn to serve all who come to me, I find that disgusting.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 27, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25): But it REALLY is about poor women who don't deserve to live because they've made bad choices in their lives. And as a physician who is sworn to serve all who come to me, I find that disgusting.
Not saying you're right or wrong, but please explain this
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 28, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1229 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 13): Maybe you should research stuff more before going all boneheaded about it.
Obviously I should - or at least be more patient. I guess it took a day to realize the spineless twits they are, caving to blackmail from the extreme left.
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 19): Planned Parenthood has created a donation space on their website just for breast cancer screening.
If you actually believe that money goes just for breast cancer screening I have a slightly pre-owned bridge in Manhattan to sell you.
Money is fungible, that is why embargoes on commodity exports are stupid. One less dollar PP needs to spend on screening is one more dollar they can free up for their core eugenics focus. It is like saying giving a junkie food stamps and then saying you are not supporting his habit, just giving him food - well, guess what he is going to do with the money he just saved on that bag of Doritos.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Smokers pay a pretty stiff tax for their sins
I don't care about the tax they pay. I care about the cost of their filthy habit to me - ruined clothes, sidewalks / parks / beaches / etc. littered with cigarette buds, less work for the same pay than others on account of the 10 minute breaks they get every hour, etc. etc. etc.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): That indicates that we need to put a self funding tax on sugar and other products that lead to diabetes
Oh boy, just what we need, another tool for the nanny state, having some panel of bureaucrats tell us what we can and cannot eat... why don't you just save some money and enroll the whole country on Nutrisystem?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Does not mean it is NOT a health issue either.
Hmmm, that is exactly what it means.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Easy way to address the issue - provide core level health care as a universal right for all Americans.
One - no it is not (free access to health care is not in the U.S. constitution) and two - abortion is not healthcare.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): I also support women being given the choice because of rape, incest
Who said anything about rape? Why do you always feel the need to bring that up? I am not against abortion in those cases, and doubt most anti-abortion people are, but when they do happen those cases get treated at hospitals, not abortion mills (and in that case they should be funded by auctioning off the bastards' balls on eBay, no need for charity). But the fact is, rape / risk to the mother / etc. represent a very small percentage of all abortion cases.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): or other equally difficult choices.
There you are threading a very thin line... actual medical danger to the mother (not some fake allegation of "mental stress" as was used in many countries when that was the only case allowed by law) then yes. Malformations of the fetus, I guess it depends on the level of severity and the baby's expected life expectancy and quality of life.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Now they just need to start some damage control!
Too late, they are done for, nobody on either side will touch them now. Congratulations, left, you have managed to destroy a charity just because you wanted to keep sucking on its tit.
Turning their hate machine on an otherwise unsuspecting citizen will come back to bite the left in the ass, though, and rightfully so. From now on it is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that associating yourself with toxic organizations like the ones supported by the left is a no-win solution - they are like your loser cousin, you give them money to help them pay off a gambling debt and next thing you know it he has moved into your basement and is drinking the milk out of the carton in your fridge, and there is no way to kick them out because they will make a huge fuss to the whole neighborhood. Suspect next time PP / PETA / Jesse Jackson / etc. come rolling around to extort protection money from some corporate entity there will be a lot of unexplicable last-minute vacations booked and they won't be able to get in touch with anyone.
Quoting apodino (Reply 23): What Komen was trying to do is take planned parenthood out as the middle man. In other words, the money that was donated to the Komen foundation for breast cancer screening and prevention would have been donated to planned parenthood first and then allegedly for breast screening. By sending the money directly to the providers (Remember PP doesn't do mammograms, as Lila Rose has revealed through undercover work), this ensures that the money is being used for what its intended for.
Come on, they clearly wanted to kill every low income woman in America... if MSNBC says it so it must be true.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25): During Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I donate to the research centers that actually do research into REAL CURES. Memorial Sloan Kettering. UCSF. Stanford. University of Michigan (my medical school alma mater). Etc.
If you want to donate to find real cures buy shares in a pharmaceutical or bio-tech company, because that is where the true innovation really happens and all the useful drugs come out of. As much as many people try to deny it, incentives do work remarkably well - if you work in pharma and you lead a research team that discovers a cure for something you get rewarded handsomely through your stock options, if you do the same at a university or government lab your grant is kaput.
Reminds me of a time I met a Portuguese researcher in a party in Boston - she was visiting a small bio-tech company in Cambridge that was in the brink of developing a cure for a rare disease that mostly just affects people of Portuguese ancestry (and some Ukrainians and Swedes as well, for some reason), which happened to be the topic of her research at a government-linked lab in Portugal. This small bio-tech company who had no connection with Portugal whatsoever had done a market research to figure out where the revenue potential was and what the competition was looking at, identiifed this disease and spent tens of millions of dollares researching a cure for it. When I excitedly asked her if we were finally going to get a cure for that disease, she said to me in a very natural manner "I hope not, otherwise there goes my grant".
As a taxpayer, I felt I would much rather pay $100,000 a treatment to a private company that had risked their own capital to develop a solution that worked than keep throwing money at "researchers" like her.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 29, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): If you want to donate to find real cures buy shares in a pharmaceutical or bio-tech company, because that is where the true innovation really happens and all the useful drugs come out of. As much as many people try to deny it, incentives do work remarkably well - if you work in pharma and you lead a research team that discovers a cure for something you get rewarded handsomely through your stock options, if you do the same at a university or government lab your grant is kaput.
Have you ever worked in medical research? You can't do medical research, even commercial research, without places like MSK. In order to do a trial of a commercial drug, you need MSK or a similar facility. You need a source for tumors to study. You need research into basic mechanistic stuff that is necessary to know, but too far removed from drug development to be profitable.
Researchers are nerds who do this because they find it fascinating. And so they toil twelve hour days for little money and their work rewards humanity. I know this because I've been one.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): Too late, they are done for, nobody on either side will touch them now. Congratulations, left, you have managed to destroy a charity just because you wanted to keep sucking on its tit.
Boy, that destruction came awfully quick. Maybe it's not just the "left." If it were some fringe group, it wouldn't have happened so quickly.
mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 30, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): If you actually believe that money goes just for breast cancer screening I have a slightly pre-owned bridge in Manhattan to sell you.
Oh really? I'll buy it right away!
Please, we've all heard the tired, hack argument that money is fungible. It's fungible for about five minutes. But the reality is PP cannot expand the small amount of resources devoted to abortions without setting off alarm bells. The fungible argument is shallow and ignorant.
So, I've got a bridge up here in Boston that's real cheap. Maybe your friends who taught you that big word - "fungible" - can help you pay for it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 31, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 27):
Not saying you're right or wrong, but please explain this
The entire Social Conservative viewpoint is that if you've made bad choices, you should suffer for them. Their twisted version of religion dictates that. You make good choices, you go to Heaven. You make bad choices, you burn in Hell. And because of that "good/bad" dichotomy, they want to make sure that they speed up the process a bit. You know, help God out a bit.
But that's not enough. If you've mad bad choices, your CHILDREN should suffer for them, too. This is the fundamental reason why social conservatives oppose birth control and abortion, but at the same time oppose sponsoring healthcare for low-income pregnant women and their offspring, let alone education and healthcare for the unwanted children. You hear it all the time: "She shoulda kept her legs closed!" Well, she didn't. And so now, because they are so opposed to birth control, abortion, healthcare for the pregnancy, healthcare for the child once he's born, and education for the child so that maybe he doesn't repeat his mother's mistakes, the child has to suffer the same cycle.
This ideological purity has expanded so that ANY affiliation with any group that might have some compassion towards the Great Unwashed Masses who have made all these mistakes must also be squashed. Those same poor women who made bad decisions that kept them poor? They don't deserve healthcare, even when it's breast cancer. They deserve to die.
"Social Conservatism" is a hideous and inhuman philosophy. It is the view that only Social Conservatives have the moral authority to define what is right, and that all who disagree are not deserving of God's love, God's mercy, or even life itself. We've seen such thinking before in history, but I'll leave it up to you to think of examples.
We spend money on research ever day for breast cancer as well as other cancers. When my wife got the Dx of ALL she was able to benefit from years of research, and her oncologist used a protocol from a guy at Stanford.
At the same time, I believe you would be amazed at the number of women who don't know how to do a BSE, or haven't been able to get check ups from a doctor for years because of the financial barrier.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): Oh boy, just what we need,
What? You don't like the idea of people self funding their future care for medical conditions caused by consumption of products known to cause medical problems? Someone smokes and you don't want them to help pay for their cancer treatment?
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): I am not against abortion in those cases,
Careful, you're starting to sound "only center right".
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): actual medical danger to the mother (not some fake allegation of "mental stress" as was used in many countries when that was the only case allowed by law) then yes
That's pretty moderate. Are you starting to swing?
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 28): Malformations of the fetus, I guess it depends on the level of severity and the baby's expected life expectancy and quality of life.
Strike Three!. People will be calling you a liberal now.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 33, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
The entire Social Conservative viewpoint is that if you've made bad choices, you should suffer for them. Their twisted version of religion
Why do you need to deliberately confuse Social Conservatism with religion? I am an atheist and believe people should be held accountable for their own actions. And I am a true atheist, denouncing religions of all kinds, not a lefty type of atheist who loves to criticize Christianity but will go out of their way to defend other religions and their practices no matter how barbaric they are.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31): "Social Conservatism" is a hideous and inhuman philosophy. It is the view that only Social Conservatives have the moral authority to define what is right
Moral Relativism is the true hideous and inhuman philosophy who has led to the decline of so many great cultures and will one day lead to the decline of the West, the freest, most all-encompassing civilization that has ever existed.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32): Someone smokes and you don't want them to help pay for their cancer treatment?
I do. Let them pay higher health (and life) insurance premiums
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 34, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33): Let them pay higher health (and life) insurance premiums
By not using taxes to help with self pay care you are basically increasing the costs for health insurance companies, which flows to employers and employees. It also attacks the really small business owners. Why should everyone (including you) have to pay more in order to make tobacco cheaper? Or booze? Or sugar?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 35, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33): Why do you need to deliberately confuse Social Conservatism with religion?
Because almost every "social conservative" strongly identifies with one. There are rare exceptions, apparently such as yourself.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33): Moral Relativism is the true hideous and inhuman philosophy who has led to the decline of so many great cultures and will one day lead to the decline of the West, the freest, most all-encompassing civilization that has ever existed.
I have no idea what "moral relativism" is other than something like "communist" that is defined as "anything that social conservatives disagree with."
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32): At the same time, I believe you would be amazed at the number of women who don't know how to do a BSE, or haven't been able to get check ups from a doctor for years because of the financial barrier.
After some pretty extensive research, it has been found that BSE's do not really reduce mortality or morbidity from breast cancer. Furthermore, BSE's lead to an increase in unnecessary procedures, increase anxiety in women who perform them, and are also associated with increased depression (probably secondary to the anxiety). Women who perform BSE's are more likely to find benign masses on examination but are no less likely to die of breast cancer than women who do not. Thus, BSE's are no longer recommended because they cause more harm than benefit.
Now, all the education in the world can't help you if you find a lump and can't get a mammogram, much less a biopsy. And also, over-education about breast cancer also increases anxiety and worry. Increased anxiety and worry about breast cancer leads to more donations to SGK. Small wonder that they spend more on "education" than on screening on treatment. Four times more, in fact.
But you hit the nail on the head when you bring up women who haven't been able to see a doctor for years because of the financial barrier, and that was the crux of the whole PP issue. PP is not simply a contraception provider. They also provide basic healthcare services such as pap smears and breast cancer screening for low-income women who would not have access to care otherwise. So you can have as much "education" as you like, but if your breast cancer is not detected and you can't get treatment because you have no health insurance, you're dead (but very "educated").
Moral Relativism is the unspoken philosophy, defended usually by the left but not always, that says there are no good or bad/evil decisions, just "circumstances", as if Man was an ammoral individual. It is most often used to justify vicious acts committed against others or oneself, diminish the value of Reason and reduce the incentives for / demean those that make the right choices in life, therefore keeping more people in the sewer.
Suggest you watch the movie "Blood Diamond" for a scathing condemnation of Moral Relativism.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 37, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 36): Moral Relativism is the unspoken philosophy,
Then it doesn't exist.
Certainly not what you describe. It appears to be a fabrication of the social conservatives.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 39, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1004 times:
Yeah, what's described in Wikipedia is not anything like you describe.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 41, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 995 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37): Quoting Pyrex (Reply 36):
Moral Relativism is the unspoken philosophy,
Then it doesn't exist.
Oh, it exists. It's a lot like judicial activism - it's a convenient, but ultimately meaningless, attack on those who you disagree with. There's never any allowance for the possibility that it could, in fact, be one's own decisions that are bad/evil (such as the decision to punish a child for the actions of its parents), or the possibility that certain people have very good reasons for doing things that we might disagree with.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 42, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 978 times:
Quoting jamincan (Reply 40):
I guess you have to read in between the lines, causing I'm not seeing his definition either.
The closest I can get is normative relativism, which is not a generally accepted philosophy.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 30 Reply 43, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 977 times:
Agreed. It is nothing but a scam. They are not even out to solve the breast cancer problem. They are not really committed into finding a cure, really.
I stopped donating to the SBKF long ago because of this:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25): From Wikipedia for 2010:
Fundraising costs: 10%
Administrative costs 11.3%
Research 20.9% (get it? They spend more on fundraising and administration than they do on research)
Public Health Education (read: marketing) 39.1%
Screening and treatment: 18.6% (Screening 13%, treatment 5.6%)
This pisses me off. This does NOT show me that they are really committed to finding a cure. It is all about making money.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25): Does this sound like an organization that is actually looking for a cure?
Nope. If they were really doing what they say they were doing, we would probably already have had a cure solution by now. But we don't. That's sad.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25): In fact, a cure would be a disaster for SGK. They'd fold! So advocating a cure is actually against their interest.
They make millions and millions of dollars off the marking. AND they still have not found a cure. WTH?! (And I am not buying the "Well, it is difficult to find a cure for something so complicated.)
Thank goodness I stopped donating long ago. I have wasted too much money in a foundation that does not care about a cure. Ridiculous!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 44, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 958 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): So you can have as much "education" as you like, but if your breast cancer is not detected and you can't get treatment because you have no health insurance, you're dead (but very "educated").
That's the stark reality of the situation. Without a single payer healthcare system in this nation, this situation will continue to repeat itself over and over again, allowing people to needlessly die, and raising healthcare costs for EVERYONE. The United States in the only "first world" nation on Earth where working-class families are deathly afraid of their medical bills, at least in my opinion.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 45, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 936 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 43): Nope. If they were really doing what they say they were doing, we would probably already have had a cure solution by now.
To be fair, there has been a lot of progress on breast cancer. But you have to understand that there is no such disease as "Breast Cancer." There are many different cancers of the breast and they all have very different characteristics and response to treatment.
The word "cancer" is like "fever." It's really a symptom more than a diagnosis. The specific type of tumor is the real diagnosis, much as the specific infection is the diagnosis in "fever." Demanding a cure for cancer is like demanding a cure for fever.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 46, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 931 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 44): The United States in the only "first world" nation on Earth where working-class families are deathly afraid of their medical bills, at least in my opinion.
This.
Those against single-payer/government run health care argue that systems like the NHS are wrought with inefficiencies and don't perform any better than what the US has.
Not only do they never provide facts or figures to back their claims up, but my response is always: So we get the same "crappy" healthcare we do now, but don't run ourselves into debt we'll never get out of? Sign me up!
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 30 Reply 47, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46): Those against single-payer/government run health care argue that systems like the NHS are wrought with inefficiencies and don't perform any better than what the US has.
The only reason as to why I oppose that single payer system sponsored by the Federal Government is because of the mandatory requirement to have it. With that in mind, they'll penalize you $1K every month you do not participate (or do not have any form of health insurance), and they collect those fines via income taxes at tax time. Is that wise in this economy? No. That is the fastest way to put American families into bankruptcy. Also, you have to prove that you have health insurance by stapling your benefits pages to your tax return to show that you have health insurance in order to avoid the fines.
I wouldn't! Be careful what you wish for...... Until Obama makes some changes to what I have described above, I will be against the Obamacare. One cannot be forced to have something that may not benefit them. Each case is very different. That is the problem. Too much Government interference.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 48, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 837 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47): One cannot be forced to have something that may not benefit them.
This is the biggest BS argument I have ever heard in my life. You could be in an accident. You could slip and fall getting out of bed. You could wake up tomorrow coughing up blood.
This "I don't need healthcare" stance is absolutely absurd. EVERYBODY will wind up needing to see a doctor at some point in their lives. That's 100% of people. Some people, by no fault of their own, will have more complex healthcare needs than others. If you are breathing, you will need medical care at some point. Thus, if you are breathing, you should be paying into it for when (not if) you need it.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 49, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 833 times:
Can anyone clear up why anyone would be "forced" to buy health insurance? If the government took over, wouldn't it make most sense to just have it come out of taxes and eliminate "insurance" all together? I know there are many different approaches, pardon my ignorance on all of this
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1767 posts, RR: 19 Reply 50, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 830 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): Can anyone clear up why anyone would be "forced" to buy health insurance? If the government took over, wouldn't it make most sense to just have it come out of taxes and eliminate "insurance" all together? I know there are many different approaches, pardon my ignorance on all of this
In countries where government "takes over" health care, in the sense that the government pays all medical doctors for providing health care, there is generally no dire need for private health insurance - you've got that nailed, it is provided through taxes - there is however room for extra private health insurance for those who desire to use medical service that is either completely privately run or to bypass the system.
Essentially insurance as it is known in the USA is eliminated all together, yes. Instead there is one government "insurance company" funded by taxes that contracts and/or pays medical professionals to provide their service to all taxpayers.
It's something pretty much taken for granted in many countries, it's benefits and drawbacks are known - but it is a viable system and it does cover everyone and no-one ever needs to concern oneself whether one is covered or not. I'd guess that's the main benefit, while the main drawback is that one may have to wait longer for the service.
The quality of service can be top notch, that's not really dependent on the way one pays for it, in my experience.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 51, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 825 times:
Thanks. I am all for "power of the people" and all and don't like the government to force anything on us. But the more I think about it, the more I think our system is screwed up. No one can be forced to buy insurance, so when they don't and get sick, we obviously don't let them die, so the tax payers pick up the tab........ so essentially, the system is pretty redundant. Whether we pay for poor people's insurance or we don't, when they end up in the hospital, they'll be paid for one way or another.
I don't see why the 2 sides see it as "one or the other." Why can't we implement a government safety net, a real one, not "show up at the hospital and we'll pay for you even though you don't have insurance" safety net. Let the people decide to default to this or to additionally purchase better insurance and let the free market in on this. At the same time, tackle tort reform! The insurance costs for doctors are ridiculous, and no matter which approach we take, tort reform would help.
Is that a good idea or is that stupid? If it's good, which party / politician advocates it? I have a feeling since it incorporates both sides no one wants to touch it lol. Oh politics in America, why must you be so extreme...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 52, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 836 times:
As a physician, the problem I have with a single-payor system is that I want it guaranteed in the Constitution that payments to physicians for services can never be cut.
The Medicaid cuts of recent months have highlighted a serious problem. If every doctor is paid by the government and the government then decides to cut my pay by 30%, what am I to do? I've invested far too much time and money into my training to simply get another job.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 53, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 824 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): Can anyone clear up why anyone would be "forced" to buy health insurance? If the government took over, wouldn't it make most sense to just have it come out of taxes and eliminate "insurance" all together? I know there are many different approaches, pardon my ignorance on all of this
Quality of care in many countriees that have a "single-payer" healthcare system is often so crap that if you want to be seen in any reasonable amount of time you often have go private, for which health insurance is useful. So not only are you paying through the nose in extra taxes every month but you still need to buy private health insurance anyway if you don't want to wait three months for an appointment.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 50): Instead there is one government "insurance company"
Wrong. I work with insurance companies every day - if any of my clients ever tried to run their businesses with the same accounting standards and prudential requirements of any government-run healthcare system (or any Social Security system, for that matter) they would get shut down by insurance regulators immediately and thrown into jail. Government-run systems might be many things, but insurance they are not.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 51): No one can be forced to buy insurance, so when they don't and get sick, we obviously don't let them die, so the tax payers pick up the tab........ so essentially, the system is pretty redundant.
Great. Lets just stick with that train of thought for a moment, shall we? Nobody can be forced to buy home insurance, if their house burns down we obviously fix it, don't let that person sleep on the street. Nobody can be forced to buy auto insurance (other than liability coverage), so if someone wraps their car around a tree and they need their car to go to work we don't just let them take the bus. Pretty soon responsible people buying insurance to protect themselves will be the idiots.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): As a physician, the problem I have with a single-payor system is that I want it guaranteed in the Constitution that payments to physicians for services can never be cut.
Oh, of course, single payer is great just as long as you get to keep your little oligopoly... so even if one day the medical community in the U.S. woke up and decided to make medicine an undergraduate degree as happens pretty much everywhere else in the world and more people were able to afford a medical education you could still keep your little thing going no matter how many doctors existed, hum?
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): I've invested far too much time and money into my training to simply get another job.
Oh, and, say, the actuaries that work for the insurance companies haven't? That should be the primary driver of any government decision, what happens to a select group of people?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1767 posts, RR: 19 Reply 54, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 796 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): As a physician, the problem I have with a single-payor system is that I want it guaranteed in the Constitution that payments to physicians for services can never be cut.
I'm sure there's a million different ways to implement a single-payer system, but in general in such a system the medical profession either as a whole or by specialization negotiates with the insurance agency on payment for procedures - however their hands are not tied to that negotiation since their final fee for a patient is freely decided. If a doctor feels his services should command a higher price, he's perfectly free to set his price to whatever he deems reasonable.
The patient will then have to pay the difference. It shouldn't matter who insures, the fees are set by the doctor,.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): Quality of care in many countriees that have a "single-payer" healthcare system is often so crap that if you want to be seen in any reasonable amount of time you often have go private, for which health insurance is useful. So not only are you paying through the nose in extra taxes every month but you still need to buy private health insurance anyway if you don't want to wait three months for an appointment.
Obviously the quality of care argument you make is so wrong it's laughable - however one may have to wait longer for treatment, that's true. The quality of care, however is always top-notch. People can "cut in line" if they have money or private insurance, and choose a medical service that specializes in such service.
Also a blatant lie is that one pays through the nose for single payer health care. It's cheap, that's one thing it has got going for it - not just because it cuts out the middle man, a private insurance company, but also because it allows for more effective units and better organization.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): Wrong. I work with insurance companies every day - if any of my clients ever tried to run their businesses with the same accounting standards and prudential requirements of any government-run healthcare system (or any Social Security system, for that matter) they would get shut down by insurance regulators immediately and thrown into jail. Government-run systems might be many things, but insurance they are not.
That's just nonsense, and very much off the mark, and untruthful. Government can and does insure health care in almost all western countries. Close to every single last one of them. So "insurance they are".
Nor is there anything wrong with the accounting standards used. I know that these things can be criticized, but one can't use made up criticism and expect to be taken seriously, now can one?
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 55, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 778 times:
I agree with pretty much all of Asturias's comments regarding both payment for medical services and the quality of care provided under universal care schemes.
Here in Australia under the Medicare system everyone is covered and the system is funded by a levy on income. Medicare provides a list of scheduled fees for services, indicating the amount the medical practitioners may charge and be reimbursed by Medicare, either through direct billing or by billing the patient who then claims the Medicare refund. The medical practitioner is free to charge more than the scheduled fee but the patient will then need to cover the gap. Patients may choose to purchase private medical insurance, and various packages are available. Those who do purchase hospital cover (rather than just ancillary cover) may obtain a rebate on the insurance. Typically, the rebate will be deducted from the premium but you may elect to claim it when lodging a tax return if so preferred.
Medicare requires that treatment should be based on need so that a person who is covered by Medicare should not be expected to wait for life-saving surgery while the surgeon decides to go of and do a more lucrative nose job privately. The main waiting times are for those requiring elective surgery, though some argue the definition of elective is too broad, resulting in long waiting times for some procedures. Others argue that waiting times are increased because of private insurance allowing some to jump the queue. Either way, whether you have to wait or not, the standard of care is high.
Despite that, there are problems with the system. As medical knowledge expands and the ability to offer treatment increases demands on the systems grow. An aging population throws up further problems for which there are no simple cures. For example, no-one chooses Alzheimer's (my mother certainly didn't) but growing numbers of people are succumbing to it. There is no cure but patients require an increasing level of care both for the patients and for their carers. So there are more demands for money to be injected into the system.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 56, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 735 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
The only reason as to why I oppose that single payer system sponsored by the Federal Government is because of the mandatory requirement to have it.
Core health care via a Medicare system would be paid for with a tax, just like Medicare today is paid for with a tax.
Note I said "core" health care. You go to the emergency room you get what you need. If a resident can handle your case then that is what you get. Core care does not, in itself, get you the right to demand a certain doctor because you read that he was the best in a 5 state area. Nor does it give you the right to a private room if there is no medical reason for it. But you get the medical care you need, including tests or surgical procedures you might need.
That approach allows for gap insurance like Medicare patients now have - and it's a pretty good deal. It also allows for upgrades like a private room and your choice of doctors. (Remember though, your preferred doctor might not be on call that day/night and you get someone else.)
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): The Medicaid cuts of recent months have highlighted a serious problem. If every doctor is paid by the government and the government then decides to cut my pay by 30%, what am I to do? I've invested far too much time and money into my training to simply get another job.
The Doc Fix should have been made permanent long ago. It's a joke. There should be no problem developing a reasonable fee schedule that is increased on a COLA, just like Social Security is. And, to be blunt, we should be doing a bit more for the PCPs (of all ages) to get a larger percentage of med students moving to those fields.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): So not only are you paying through the nose in extra taxes every month but you still need to buy private health insurance anyway if you don't want to wait three months for an appointment.
You've been listening to propaganda too long. The cost of care in the US with our "super efficient, private" system is the highest in the world. We pay through the nose, but do not have the best outcomes in the world. Last I saw, we were at 22 in the world in Infant Mortality - right there with Cuba. Bloody Cuba!
And when core care is at the public pay level the costs of private insurance is dramatically lower. I had private care in both the US and Australia when I was going there on business 5 times a year and the Aussie private insurance was over 80% LESS that the US.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): Government-run systems might be many things, but insurance they are not.
Government core care programs provide care to everyone, regardless of their financial status. You might end up in an 8 bed ward, but your care is there. The other MAJOR benefit of a Medicare based system is that it takes a huge load off of employers P&L. Especially smaller companies who have some real cash flow issues with the current system.
I don't care what you call it, public funding of core care is the target for both companies tired of the unnecessary burden on their P&Ls and providers & patients caught up in the current overpriced system that we now have.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): Nobody can be forced to buy home insurance, if their house burns down we obviously fix it, don't let that person sleep on the street. Nobody can be forced to buy auto insurance (other than liability coverage), so if someone wraps their car around a tree and they need their car to go to work we don't just let them take the bus.
Pretty bad comparison, especially since the focus is on medical care. You can't intelligently compare providing care to a patient with an acute leukemia and someone not having car insurance. Unless, of course, you consider your car more important than your life.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): Oh, of course, single payer is great just as long as you get to keep your little oligopoly..
It's the insurance companies in this country that are playing the games. They even have Anti-Trust Indemnity so they can legally be a monopoly. And that means that your doctor has to call 1-800-MOMMY-MAY-I to get authorization for a test or procedure.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): even if one day the medical community in the U.S. woke up and decided to make medicine an undergraduate degree as happens pretty much everywhere else in the world
When my wife completed her 3 year program in Australia to become a Physical Therapist she was given as much (or more) training that a Masters in the US gets. That is because her "liberal arts" side of her education was completed in high school. No spending time in non-medical courses. She also went to classes from 8 to 4 for the first two years (with classes & internships in the 3rd year). Medical students went straight from high school to med school for 6 years. And that included a lot of patient contact during those years.
Our system of education does protect the various professors teaching classes in literature or fine arts and that does add to the time, and the costs. in terms of profession related education, be it medicine or engineering or accounting, it doesn't add value to the specific training, but does (many believe) increase the intellectual scope of the individual.
If you want just a basic undergraduate degree provider you will need to stick to RNs and PAs. The level of scientific training a doctor has is past that BS degree, or even a MS Degree, levels and they do get a Doctorate for a reason.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54): Government can and does insure health care in almost all western countries.
And the really civilized ones do it better than we do. Pity.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 53): they would get shut down by insurance regulators immediately and thrown into jail.
Take away ATI and you have the real crooks.
Government accounting is different than corporate accounting, but that doesn't mean it is any less sophisticated.
And it seems to be the private "companies" that are ripping of Medicare and Medicaid every day.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 57, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 725 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): The Doc Fix should have been made permanent long ago. It's a joke.
But it wasn't because one side or the other of Congress keeps playing games. And until I can be 100% sure that these games will NEVER EVER EVER happen, I cannot support a single-payor system.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10022 posts, RR: 54 Reply 58, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 700 times:
I've been out of the loop on this thread for a few days. Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 59, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 695 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 58): I've been out of the loop on this thread for a few days. Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 60, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 688 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57): And until I can be 100% sure that these games will NEVER EVER EVER happen, I cannot support a single-payor system.
I am not a slave and I will not work for free.
I'm not so much a supporter of a single payer system as I am about core health care under Medicare. The difference is that core care coverage makes it easier for doctors to work inside the system or be outside the system. Or both.
The Doc who did the recent discectomy under Medicare was the same guy who did my first one 20 years ago. This time he is working in a small, private hospital that he and other doctors own. About 40 beds, far better nursing care, a far nicer room and food that blows the larger hospitals away. And they do a load of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I believe it should be a provider's choice, but at the same time I also believe that government investments in health care should be focused on those who do participate. We can start with research funding. There is no reason to fund researchers in organizations who don't take government funded patients.
There should also be motivations or PCPs and also government providers. Major reductions in the cost of their education is one simple example. Assuming some of the liabilities is another.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 61, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 685 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 58): I've been out of the loop on this thread for a few days. Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
Komen doesn't want to support abortion > some people don't want to support abortion in universal healthcare > universal healthcare
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 62, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 661 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 58): Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
It's probably stemming from the reality that many people thee days don't have the financial access to health care, PP is providing that access for women in areas besides abortion and SK Foundation is providing financial to PP for doing tasks (like breast screening) that public health should be doing.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 63, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 663 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61): Komen doesn't want to support abortion
Back that up. Komen doesn't want to provide funds to PP because PP performs abortions. None of the funds that SGK provides would have gone to any sort of family planning program at PP, but because PP provides those services, SGK pulled the funds. PP was singled out because there are other organizations that offer family planning services up to and including abortion that SGK still funds.
This led to a huge public backlash against SGK that forced them to reverse the decision 48 hours later. That said, by that time, enough muckrakers, like myself, had pointed out that SGK's finances have enough irregularities that they really shouldn't be a "nonprofit" anyway.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 64, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 642 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61):
Komen doesn't want to support abortion
Back that up.
oh, well whatever the main topic was about:
Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter): The Susan G. Komen foundation has cut funding from Planned Parenthood citing it's current investigation into alleged use of Federal Funds in performing abortions.
Unless you're saying that the donations don't equate to abortions... I'm not arguing that I was just trying to explain how we got to universal healthcare
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 65, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 641 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64): Unless you're saying that the donations don't equate to abortions...
SGK said that they were pulling funding because they don't fund organizations that are under investigation. Except that's stupid because anyone could cause funding to be pulled just by investigating. Investigating doesn't require a warrant or due process. Furthermore, and far more damning, other orgs that were under investigation were not similarly affected.
So clearly it was an attack on PP because PP is unpopular in certain political circles. There is no other explanation that fits all the facts.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 66, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 612 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65): SGK said that they were pulling funding because they don't fund organizations that are under investigation.
The "under investigation" crap was because of some yo-yo politician bowing to the pro-life group. I consider it far from a legitimate investigation that would be carried out for anything but a weak political reason.
SGK was using a sham for an excuse and they got caught. Big time.
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 379 posts, RR: 3 Reply 67, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 587 times:
Look, plain and simple, no matter your stance on abortion, this is money DONATED, not earned, but GIVEN to an organization. If for whatever reason I dont like what they stand for or feel a financial pinch and pull my funding of them, they are SOL. I am not a mediawhore or to be scrutinized for doing so, they should be kissing my ass for the money they got when I was willing to shell it out. Period.
I do find the irony amusing however that a NON-PROFIT organization dedicated to curing a disease that primarily affects women would be opposed to a WOMAN's right to choose.
If they are, so the F what? Their choice. Their money... Why should anyone tell an organization of such stature how to feel?
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 68, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 581 times:
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 67):
If they are, so the F what? Their choice. Their money... Why should anyone tell an organization of such stature how to feel?
Because we too have the right to refuse to DONATE money. And if nobody DONATES money to SGK, which is what has been happening, then SGK ceases to exist. So we absolutely get to tell them how we want our donations spent. The many problems with SGK is why they've never gotten a dime from me.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 69, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 576 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54):
Obviously the quality of care argument you make is so wrong it's laughable
I speak from personal experience.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54): however one may have to wait longer for treatment, that's true.
But that is an issue with quality of care as well, is it not? I never said the doctors were incompetent, but having to wait three months for a consultation does affect your quality of care - it is not just about the outcome, it is the experience. Most people avoid doctors like the plague, so having to stand in line for hours to book an appointment months from now that can be cancelled at a whim at the last minute does add unnecessary stress and aggravation (as well as can give time for more serious things to develop - agree, in the urgent cases you usually get seen on time, but you never know what is serious).
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54): Also a blatant lie is that one pays through the nose for single payer health care
What percentage of your monthly salary goes to pay for your healthcare? What percentage of your monthly salary does your employer need to pay in addition to your contribution? The difference with insurance is, I know (well, my part, anyway), it doesn't get hidden in multiple layers of taxation to hide the true cost..
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54): but also because it allows for more effective units and better organization.
It does not allow for better "organization" unless you go with a single provider system as well, and then you have hospitals (and healthcare systems) run by public "servants", with predictable results.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 54): That's just nonsense, and very much off the mark, and untruthful. Government can and does insure health care in almost all western countries. Close to every single last one of them. So "insurance they are".
An insurance company needs to calculate a best estimate of the present value of total lifetime cost of the benefits it has provided, and create reserves for that (which need to be provisioned by actual assets). On top of that, they need to add an extra layer of capital (basically, their own) just as a cushion - in the case of a health insurer, that layer of capital would probably be around 1/3 to 1/2 of reserves.
Government-run systems not only don't need to have any capital to support their business but they don't even need to have enough assets to cover their liabilities. Look at Calpers, for instance, the massive pension fund / healthcare system for California public employees - according to their own annual report, their funded ratio (ratio of assets over liabilites) is around 65%, and that is assuming totally unrealistic future investment performance of ~8% (when 10-year treasury rates are at ~2%). Using a more actuarially defensible rate of 5% (insurance companies would get hit with massive capital charges if their portfolio was so heavily weighted in equities and alternatives as Calpers' is), which would increase the value of the reserves (remember, they are carried at present value) would decrease funding ratio to ~40%. Any insurance company working like that would have long, long been shut down by now.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 55): For example, no-one chooses Alzheimer's (my mother certainly didn't) but growing numbers of people are succumbing to it. There is no cure but patients require an increasing level of care both for the patients and for their carers. So there are more demands for money to be injected into the system.
Yes, but most of that care is daily assisted living and not necessarily medical care per se (unfortunately also know from experience).
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
Core health care via a Medicare system would be paid for with a tax, just like Medicare today is paid for with a tax.
Last time I checked Medicare and Medicaid already account for ~50% of total U.S. healthcare spending, and a huge percentage of the Federal budget. How much more do you want?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): The cost of care in the US with our "super efficient, private" system is the highest in the world.
Yes, but not because of the way the system is designed. There are several other causes for that (and that is a whole other discussion).
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): The other MAJOR benefit of a Medicare based system is that it takes a huge load off of employers P&L
No it doesn't, it just replaces it with another load. Countries that have such a system have huge "social surcharges" on employers (basically just a way to try to hide the true cost to taxpayers) to the point where the all-in cost for an employee, for a company, could be almost twice their monthly wage.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): public funding of core care is the target for both companies tired of the unnecessary burden on their P&Ls
I agree we should move towards a more individual-based health insurance system, instead of relying on employers, but Obamacare missed a HUGE opportunity to do just that.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): You can't intelligently compare providing care to a patient with an acute leukemia and someone not having car insurance. Unless, of course, you consider your car more important than your life.
Thank you for deliberately misrepresenting my post and leaving out the part about the house burning down that I mentioned as well. Last time I checked people needed a place to live as well, no?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): It's the insurance companies in this country that are playing the games. They even have Anti-Trust Indemnity so they can legally be a monopoly
Again, another huge opportunity missed with Obamacare - insurers should have been allowed to compete across state lines. If I am in NY and there is an insurer in Vermont offering me cheaper health coverage why shouldn't I be allowed to buy it? The problem with the current system is not a lack of health insurers on a global basis, but archaic state by state regulations basically enforce local monopolies (and don't even get me started on hospital groups...).
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): Our system of education does protect the various professors teaching classes in literature or fine arts and that does add to the time, and the costs. in terms of profession related education, be it medicine or engineering or accounting, it doesn't add value to the specific training, but does (many believe) increase the intellectual scope of the individual.
It does not. There is no reason why someone should have to sit through 4 years of Beer Pong 101 spending $50,000 / yearbjust to get a shot at medical/law/dental school and have an opportunity to do it all over again.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): The level of scientific training a doctor has is past that BS degree, or even a MS Degree, levels and they do get a Doctorate for a reason.
I guarantee you that a doctor in Europe that goes through 6 years of medical training in which all he has are medical classes, day in and day out, is just as competent as a doctor with 4 years of Medieval Anthropology followed by 4 years of medical school.
Quoting D L X (Reply 58): I've been out of the loop on this thread for a few days. Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
Have no idea. Apparently some people believe abortion has anything to do with healthcare. I'll be damned if I know why.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60): I also believe that government investments in health care should be focused on those who do participate. We can start with research funding. There is no reason to fund researchers in organizations who don't take government funded patients.
Nah, leave medical research for those with an interest in making it succeed (drug companies). Want to hurt them where it hurts? More public funding for medical schools, to allow them to increase the numbers (plus, the aforementioned change to 6 year programs).
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 30 Reply 71, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 524 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48): Thus, if you are breathing, you should be paying into it for when (not if) you need it.
I think you are missing my point. I don't like being told what to do when it comes to MY money. I should not be forced to buy health insurance by the government, period. Whatever happened to keeping the government out of our personal private lives? With Obamacare, you will no longer have a personal private life, period.
Yes, one should be paying, but also one should not be required to pay. If I don't want something and/or do not find the item useful, I will not buy it. Simple as that. Making health insurance mandatory is ridiculous!
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): Can anyone clear up why anyone would be "forced" to buy health insurance?
That is what I'm trying to figure out. I can't get answers on that anywhere.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): Core health care via a Medicare system would be paid for with a tax, just like Medicare today is paid for with a tax.
Note I said "core" health care. You go to the emergency room you get what you need. If a resident can handle your case then that is what you get. Core care does not, in itself, get you the right to demand a certain doctor because you read that he was the best in a 5 state area. Nor does it give you the right to a private room if there is no medical reason for it. But you get the medical care you need, including tests or surgical procedures you might need.
That approach allows for gap insurance like Medicare patients now have - and it's a pretty good deal. It also allows for upgrades like a private room and your choice of doctors. (Remember though, your preferred doctor might not be on call that day/night and you get someone else.)
Huh? What does this have to do with being required by Federal law to purchase health insurance or be fined $1,000 for every month you do not have health insurance??
Quoting D L X (Reply 58): Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in universal health care?
See reply 44. That is where the single payer thing came up for the first time in this thread.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1767 posts, RR: 19 Reply 72, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 479 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 69): I speak from personal experience.
I can say I do too, which would be equally true - I am sure your experience is well reflected in your words. It appears my experience has simply been more positive in this regard than yours, but you are also painting here with too broad a brush. I will explain what I mean; I do not claim that any kind of single payer system is perfect or even preferable to anything else, I did however fairly and accurately point out it's major benefit and it's major drawback in general. You criticize by comparing a generic single payer system to US institutions (I know nothing about them, sorry) and your seeming personal ideology on how and what the "government" should or should not be, how it should or should not organize its institutions etc. instead of what it is or isn't. Being against single payer on principle is fine, but to be honest about that is better. Also; there's more than one type of a single payer system - as well you know. About one type for every country that has one.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 69): But that is an issue with quality of care as well, is it not? I never said the doctors were incompetent, but having to wait three months for a consultation does affect your quality of care - it is not just about the outcome, it is the experience. Most people avoid doctors like the plague, so having to stand in line for hours to book an appointment months from now that can be cancelled at a whim at the last minute does add unnecessary stress and aggravation (as well as can give time for more serious things to develop - agree, in the urgent cases you usually get seen on time, but you never know what is serious).
Yes, I agree. Waiting for service does lower the overall quality of care. I understood you to be criticizing the competency people working in a single payer health care system, so I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.
Carrying on; it is not a rule that a single payer system equals long waiting periods. That is simply a trend which follows funding more or less one to one. More money, less waiting, more quality. The very same principle that guides private health insurance. More money, less waiting, more quality. It's the same deal, in that very broad sense.
I'm not aware of a shortage of skilled medical workers. There can be a shortage of money to pay them with, obviously. But in a single payer system, that is policy, not an integral part of the single payer system.
In other words; a single payer system pays for health care - it does not provide the health care. That's in the hands of private individuals or institutions (public or private as the case may be).
It is fundamental to separate in your argument, the entity paying for treatment and the entity providing the treatment. They're not the same. Even in most single payer system countries I am aware of which also have government run hospitals, these two are separate in one form or another. They are accounted for separately for sure. The hospital is government run as far as that goes, but all treatments reimbursed by the single payer public insurer.
The government health care insurance company can pay for government health care provision as well as private, because in its mandate there doesn't have to be any distinction made between health care provider A and B, where one is private and the other is public in organization.
That just isn't very interesting information to said government health care insurance company, unless it is made by law only to deal with private health care providers and the government directly funds the publicly run hospitals.
In other countries, there is direct funding to government run hospitals and less emphasis on accounting for every patient like in a private clinic - the point is, one makes one's single payer system as one wants.
There's no perfect blueprint of a single payer system - the main purpose is to cut out the middle man, effectively erasing the private health care insurance companies from the general health insurance market, thus be in a position to make better and cheaper contracts with health care providers and a cheaper and more efficient organization... organization I explain here below a few paragraphs down, but I digress.
Continuing on; your experience on dealing with the single payer system... yes, of course it can be annoying to make appointments, but using a phone is accepted and one does not need to walk and stand in line for an appointment (at last not in my part of the world) - only seen that in the emergency room. Nor is it regular that appointments are canceled at the last minute. It is most irregular. Your experience must have been quite unique. In all seriousness.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 69): What percentage of your monthly salary goes to pay for your healthcare? What percentage of your monthly salary does your employer need to pay in addition to your contribution? The difference with insurance is, I know (well, my part, anyway), it doesn't get hidden in multiple layers of taxation to hide the true cost..
How true, there is no clause in my tax return that tells me how my money will be spent. Not for the single payer health care system, nor for anything else. Being a little curious now, I can see some general figures that explain that about a quarter of the government's expenses go to the welfare state, which includes among other things the single payer system. It also includes pensions, unemployment benefits, social services and whatnot. So the entire welfare state takes about 25% of all my taxes and everyone's taxes.
But you're absolutely correct, in that I have no clear number of how much of my taxes goes into the single payer system - except that it is less than 25%, it is not a transparent system. But unless one goes hunting for statistics on government websites (which I can't be bothered to do, I'm not that interested) one can't know. It isn't a transparent system. Never was. Anywhere, if I am not mistaken. Single payer or no. In the case of the single payer system, I guess I don't care so much that a good part of my taxes goes into running it. It's the social contract I am a part of. I am no radical or revolutionary.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 69): It does not allow for better "organization" unless you go with a single provider system as well, and then you have hospitals (and healthcare systems) run by public "servants", with predictable results.
Well, sure a single provider system certainly allows for even extra organization - but not exclusively that. Private insurance companies would agree with me on this, that having only one insurance company allows for better organization. Which was my point. There is an overhead cost for multiple entities, human relation, advertising, etc. It's a long list. In this case, what works for a private company would also work for a public one - namely that one large single paying insurance company allows for better organization than many small one would.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 69): Government-run systems not only don't need to have any capital to support their business but they don't even need to have enough assets to cover their liabilities.
That's right, because government companies (i.e. institutions) can't be defaulted, liquidated or put in bankruptcy. At least not over here, I'm just guessing it's similar with in the USA. Perhaps not, regardless there's a very good reason for that, namely that government institutions are not private companies, in any way shape or form.
They can't be run like private companies, nor can one have the same expectations to them. They are there to perform a social function, as per the policy of the government, dictated by the legislation.
So of course they don't have any capital, that would be absurd. The policies of the government dependent on sufficient capital in the various branches of government? Huh, that's ... interesting?
Surely that is not your position. Surely.
Government-run systems (institutions) have a budget, as well you know. This budget commands their abilities along with the laws that frame their existence. A single payer system has a budget too and every year, with a new budget, it "magically" gets new funds. Nor can it overreach, if its funds run out, a single payer system literally stops paying. That is of course a problem if that happens, but what it will not do is say to the medical providers: "just take care of business, ok? we'll pay later, you know we're good for it." No, they just stop paying when funds run out.
Which means damn good organization is needed and a political will to keep this thing running. Cuts in the system will be felt and for many a politician it is so tempting to cut this rather huge expense and keep the tax money for something more frivolous. But what else is new? Again, not part of the system - but a drawback on the whole, no doubt.
However, you are overlooking that anyone can buy private health care insurance and get private treatment if they so desire, even in bad old commie Spain. No waiting period, no hassle, just first class service all the way. Just like the US of A. We got that too. The general public just can't afford to use it, of course. But it has it's market.
A single payer system isn't perfect, but it does do one thing better than anything else: it gives everyone top grade health care, no matter whether they are rich or poor, pay taxes or not. It's more a social contract than entitlement, it is an understanding we have with each other. Waiting periods and all. I guess one either "gets" it or doesn't - and even those who "get" it aren't all very happy with it - but they of course want to make the system better, not abolish it.
A social contract, an understanding within the nation, can never be a private company. It can't bee seen as one or even compared to one. It's so much more than any company can ever be.
I think it's great Americans have their thing and that they're proud of it, but I'm happy to explain the concept and experience of decades of experience with a single payer system for those who are curious. As began, I don't doubt for a second you had some horrible experience within a total provider, single payer system and I can see you are still affected by said experience - and I just have no experience with the Portuguese system, so I'll take your word for it.
However, single payer systems are as different as they are many. I don't doubt some are worse than others. Some are also quite adequate and some I've seen (not in Spain, I recognize) are quite impressive. I've also a good insight into the private business, my father being a medical doctor with his private practice. Oddly enough, in such a commie country, he makes very impressive profit (well he's the owner of the company, so that's not salary)
So back in bad old backwards thinking government big brother pinko Europe, we generally have a single payer system that ensures every legal resident, regardless of social status and a thriving private medical business as well. I'd be amazed if Americans would fail to achieve something similar if they put their mind to it. If they're not interested, well God bless 'em, that's they're choice. Perhaps they're all just so happy with their current system. Who knows? Not I, I don't pay much attention to US politics or policy (probably as much as an average person in the US concerns himself with Spanish politics or policies)
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 73, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 449 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 72):
That's right, because government companies (i.e. institutions) can't be defaulted, liquidated or put in bankruptcy.
Tell that to the Greeks...
In the end of the day would much rather for my retirement money (for instance) to be an account under my name with funds I can transfer anywhere I want than an unfunded promise based on the unrealistic (especially in Europe) assumption that population will always be growing at a given rate.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 72): So of course they don't have any capital, that would be absurd. The policies of the government dependent on sufficient capital in the various branches of government? Huh, that's ... interesting?
Even if there was no capital (I disagree with the premise that it would be absurd) government-run systems should at the very least be matched in terms of assets and liabilities. Not charging the true actuarial costs of some government promise through the budget is just a way of kicking the can down the road, giving things away to people while pretending they cost nothing (i.e., when the costs hit someone else will be in charge, and likely some other generation will be paying) and creating a mindset of entitlement ("I paid into the system" - no you did not, not anywhere near the extent of the benefits you are getting from it). There is just way too much potential for manipulation by politicians to not use actuarial accounting for government benefits.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 734 posts, 
Agreed. It is nothing but a scam. They are not even out to solve the breast cancer problem. They are not really committed into finding a cure, really. 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1767 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
