It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Devino
Originally posted by Pathos
Existential Psychology is the belief that we are all free, and that it is at such a level where it leaves us vulnerable to the consequences of our 'own' choices.
If you don't have health insurance, we the taxpayers should not pay for your own choices. Your consequences are not our burden. Once we loose the right to choose, we leave behind certain freedoms granted by our constitution. People who want free health insurance (without a disability), are victims of their own foolish choices.
Don't put your burdens on me, for you are the one who made the choice.
I'm a deep believer in the dynamics behind psychology. Even though I obtained my degrees in another field of study, I took several classes in psychology because I believe in the responsibility of 'the individual' for 'individual freedom'. (Without social intervention.)
"You" are responsible for "your own" lack of health care. Not me.
This psychological belief is in contradiction the way you presented it. Regardless of what you may think about my comment I feel you could benefit from at least trying to understand my point.
ObamaCare, The Other Clunker Program
July 31, 2009
Merely four days out of production, the proudly touted government program “Cash for Clunkers” came to a screeching halt Thursday amid worries of an empty tank.
In an unexpected move, the government halted the program, saying it proved so popular with the public that it ran out of money in just four days of official operation. The White House later told us and others on background that the program had not been suspended, but hastened to add that all deals in the hopper before midnight Thursday would be honored — making it sound as if it had been suspended. New York Times Today
“There’s a significant backlog of ‘cash for clunkers’ deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program,” said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association. AP Today
“I’m waiting for the government to reimburse me for over $80,000,” Barry Magnus, general manager of DCH Paramus Honda, in Paramus, N.J., told us. He has completed deals on about two dozen cars, advancing his customers the rebates of between $3,500 and $4,500 each while he waits for the government to repay him. New York Times Today
Clearly, the lack of planning for a simple three month government program resulting in a temporary shutdown four days in due to depleted funds and red tape, demands the question, Why should Americans feel any comfort in a Government run health care system?
Since Congress has been committed to wasting taxpayer’s hard earned monies for years, obviously this is not the first government program to exhaust all funding.
On Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office added the Postal Service to its list of “high risk” federal programs, urging it to work with Congress to find a solution to its financial problems. Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion. Losses for the third quarter will not be made public until Aug. 5, but Mr. Potter says those numbers should be similar to figures from the second quarter, when the Postal Service lost $1.9 billion. New York Times, July 29, 2009
On Thursday, Congress moved to bail out the highway trust fund by transferring $7 billion from the general budget. ‘It would be the second such bailout for the fund in a year, following an $8 billion transfer from the general budget last September.’ AP Today
In a written statement, Senator Tom Coburn said, “Congress has wasted billions of dollars on low-priority projects like bike paths while bridges are in disrepair. In today’s economy, it’s inexcusable to continue business as usual when Congress could be supporting state priorities that would save lives, save taxpayer funds, create jobs and truly stimulate the economy,”
So, consider for a moment that you are required to wait months for a doctor’s appointment or to reschedule a hip replacement surgery pending government approval. What if you are denied an MRI or mammogram necessary for a diagnosis? If these circumstances are acceptable to you, ponder for awhile whether your parent’s right to live another year should be determined by a bureaucrat behind a desk crunching numbers?
Make no mistake, this is not an imaginary tale, take a look at history to prove the story. If you believe Congress will miraculously be capable of running a health care system without rationing and increasing taxes, then I will yield to an infamous proverb, ‘we reap what we sow.’
Obama's Doctor: President's Vision For Health Care Bound To Fail.
The man Barack Obama consulted on medical matters for over two decades said on Tuesday that the president's vision for health care reform is bound for failure.
Dr. David Scheiner, a 70-year Chicago-based physician who treated Obama for more than 20 years, said he was disheartened by the health care legislation his former patient is championing, calling it piecemeal and ineffectual.
"I look at his program and I can't see how it's going to work," Scheiner told the Huffington Post. "He has no cost control. There would be no effective cost control in his program. The [Congressional Budget Office] said it's going be incredibly expensive ... and the thing that I really am worried about is, if it is the failure that I think it would be, then health reform will be set back a long, long time."
Scheiner, who prefers a more progressive approach to reform, was hesitant about trying to divine the president's motives, although he said he believed that "in his heart of hearts" Obama "may well like a single-payer program."
"His pragmatism is what is overwhelming him." Scheiner added: "I think he's afraid that he can't get anything through if he doesn't go through this incredibly compromised program."
Admitting that he was not a political practitioner, Scheiner said he felt compelled to speak out because of his unique relationship with the president and this critical moment in the health care debate. A champion of a single-payer health care system, Scheiner noted repeatedly that he came to the debate from the perspective of having dealt with the hassles and pitfalls of the current system. His speaking out is part of a larger effort, launched by Physicians for a National Health Program, to push Congress to consider single-payer as an alternative to current reform proposals.
As Scheiner sees it, all alternatives simply fall short. Keeping private insurers in the market, he warns, would simply maintain burdensome administrative costs. He argued further that the pharmaceutical industry is not being asked to make "any kind of significant sacrifices" in the current round of reform negotiations. As for a public health care option, Scheiner insists that the proposal remains vague and inadequate.
"First of all, they haven't really gone into great detail about the public option," he said. "How much is it going to cost, are they going to really undercut private health insurance by a considerable amount? Will there be any restriction that you can get for public option?"
Despite his policy critiques, Scheiner's affection for his long-time patient is quite obvious. He recalled the president as being "gracious" and "never pulling rank" when he came to his office. "Part of my shtick, is I sing songs and I love humor," Scheiner said. "I remember last time I saw him I told him a joke, he said, 'Doc, you told me that joke before.' I was so impressed he can remember my bad jokes -- this guy has to be really bright."
During the course of the campaign, Scheiner became one of the many mini-celebrities in Obama's orbit. When the then-Senator released a one-page summary documenting his health, criticism for its brevity was laid on the doc's doorstep.
"The guy was healthy, you know," Scheiner recalled. "What can you say? His only problem was that he smoked ... But there wasn't that much to say. If I had added anything it would have been pure drivel. There wasn't anything serious in his record. He'd never had anything. The guy is built like a rock, he could probably bench-press me...
"I think my most impressive time was when Jon Stewart actually mocked my report," he added. "I thought that was wonderful."
All of which makes his current criticism of Obama's health care policies all the more difficult. While Scheiner raved about the president's intellectual curiosity, he was at loss for words as to why Obama had consulted with private industry executives more than primary care physicians. And while he spoke glowingly about the president's oratorical talents, he expressed disappointment that Obama had not done more to explain the benefits of single-payer coverage to the American public.
The White House has said that the president moved away from a single-payer approach both because of philosophical objections (consumers should be allowed to keep their coverage) as well as political realities (limited support for the proposal in Congress). The administration's position increasingly resembles the maxim, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
"It's a good question," Scheiner said, when asked if having watered-down reform become law was better than getting a single-payer system stalled in Congress. "Is something better than nothing? That is a hard one for me. That is a difficult one, because, in the end, I think [Obama's] program is going to fail."
Originally posted by Pathos
Your telling me that my understanding of Existential Psychology is flawed.
Originally posted by Pathos
you (a nobody) are telling me my education is flawed...I think you just tried to deflect my response
Originally posted by Pathos
...you couldn't come up with a better answer. Instead of presenting an educational observation, you attempted to discredit my analysis.
Originally posted by Pathos
Your answer to my question shows me evidence, which supports the fact that you don't know what your talking about.
Originally posted by Pathos
National health care will degrade the quality of care people will receive, and it will take away individual responsibility and freedoms.
Originally posted by Pathos
When does feeding any system more people lower the price of anything?
Originally posted by Pathos
Lowering the price for health care is important, but we shouldn't accomplish it through giving health care providers more people.
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by Animal
IMHO they should simply be ignored until the time comes that they choose to participate in logical and open debate.
I like how you think that everyone who disagrees with you is unworthy of discussing anything with and should be ignored. That kind of thinking says a lot about a person.
Originally posted by mhc_70
What I don't understand is why people think healthcare is too expensive? It seems to be a top priority on everybodys list, but people whine and moan that it is too expensive.
Originally posted by mhc_70
A decent family policy can be had for ~$500 a month. How much do we spend a month on shelter, groceries or a car?
link
In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2
link
In 2007, U.S. health care spending was about $7,421 per resident and accounted for 16.2% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is among the highest of all industrialized countries.
Originally posted by mhc_70
The healthcare we get through the private sector is exceptional, if you pay for it. It is argueably the best in the world.
Originally posted by mhc_70
I won't go into the huge number of middle income families that choose not to have healthcare because they would rather drive a new car, instead of their used one thats paid off, live in a slightly smaller house or eat hamburgers instead of steak.
Originally posted by mhc_70
This is a matter of priorities and living within your means. Nothing more nothing less.
smartgirlnation.com...
By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD
The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System. Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world?
Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1
But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2
“Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.
The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.
“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.
In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.
Originally posted by Animal
I choose to ignore illogic, ignorance and spin. Bring in some real factually based evidence and we can have a discussion.
Originally posted by Animal
The person who posted directly after you is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He makes bold statements about the inability of the government's inability to do anything (laughable at best) which are completely irrelevant as all they are are statements HE has made.
link
The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.