Anyone have a Geiger Counter? Radioactive CX-5?

[MikeM.]

Scientists are never wrong especially when they have to justify the millions of dollars of grant money they take

Interesting that you use the word "take" to refer to science grants. First off science grants are a tiny, miniscule portion of the federal budget (most science grants are private). Secondly, science grants are given or awarded, not taken or stolen. Finally, and most importantly, the return to our economy because of science grants far surpasses the initial cost. And the study of climate is the perfect example because it has allowed our civilization to become aware of unintended consequences that have unaffordable consequences. While 2 degrees of warming will likely not "bankrupt" humanity, 8 degrees will. And even 2 degrees of warming has expensive and undesirable consequences. Through the funding of science, humanity can make decisions that lead to higher quality lives and, in the end, isn't that what economic prosperity is all about?

I'm saddened by the relatively recent popularity of what I will call the anti-science phenomenon. Of course this has been around since scientific understanding first threatened someone's belief system. First it was the church and now the church has joined forces with big oil.

The environment needs to be a concern through out the world and not just in America. As bad as we are, we are still miles ahead of other nations with pollution controls, especially on our cars.

If you read the news at all then you should be aware that other nations are just as concerned about global warming and many are even more concerned. This is a problem that can only be solved by nations working together. So it's inexplicable why you imply that since one country has a little better pollution controls, they can just sit on their laurels and wait for everyone else to catch up. Even with current EPA mandates, the US has higher per capita global warming emissions than China! Only Australia and Saudi Arabia can match the per capita emissions of the US. Every other country is lower. So your argument is flawed on multiple important levels.

Unfortunately America will probably be nuked long before global warming kills us, since we have become too polically correct to defend our country.

This is a red herring argument. You are essentially saying that since the world has many hidden dangers, we shouldn't work to address the most dangerous problem right in front of our noses. Humanity should adopt a helpless and fatalistic attitude and just ignore the fact that we are gradually making our planet uninhabitable.

Nice too meet you MikeM, My name is DaveR. Now you can use my name in your future self righteous attacks.

Obviously you missed my point. Which was that it must be very embarrassing to believe in wild conspiracy theories (that the worlds scientists have banded together to fool humanity into believing the burning of coal and oil is leading to global catastrophe). For what purpose the worlds scientists might band together in this nefarious conspiracy is not explained (except to say it is because they are embarrassed about all the grant money that has been given to them or, as you said, that they have "taken".

Certainly, I have attacked your ridiculous conspiracy theory and I would expect that holding such unsupported beliefs would be embarrassing, at least in the company of people who were more informed. Hence my point about it being easier to do when posting anonymously.

 

[Unobtanium]

Interesting that you use the word "take" to refer to science grants. First off science grants are a tiny, miniscule portion of the federal budget (most science grants are private). Secondly, science grants are given or awarded, not taken or stolen. Finally, and most importantly, the return to our economy because of science grants far surpasses the initial cost. And the study of climate is the perfect example because it has allowed our civilization to become aware of unintended consequences that have unaffordable consequences. While 2 degrees of warming will likely not "bankrupt" humanity, 8 degrees will. And even 2 degrees of warming has expensive and undesirable consequences. Through the funding of science, humanity can make decisions that lead to higher quality lives and, in the end, isn't that what economic prosperity is all about?
I think he is disgusted about 6+ figures being spent on stupid crap like "are older fruit flies more apt to be sexually attractive, or less, to mates"

I'm saddened by the relatively recent popularity of what I will call the anti-science phenomenon. Of course this has been around since scientific understanding first threatened someone's belief system. First it was the church and now the church has joined forces with big oil.
Don't confuse science with selectively presented facts. I doubt either side is being honest in the least.






If you read the news at all then you should be aware that other nations are just as concerned about global warming and many are even more concerned. This is a problem that can only be solved by nations working together. So it's inexplicable why you imply that since one country has a little better pollution controls, they can just sit on their laurels and wait for everyone else to catch up. Even with current EPA mandates, the US has higher per capita global warming emissions than China! Only Australia and Saudi Arabia can match the per capita emissions of the US. Every other country is lower. So your argument is flawed on multiple important levels.





This is a red herring argument. You are essentially saying that since the world has many hidden dangers, we shouldn't work to address the most dangerous problem right in front of our noses. Humanity should adopt a helpless and fatalistic attitude and just ignore the fact that we are gradually making our planet uninhabitable.

I disagree. Why not enjoy life and not worry about it? I don't think we'll be alive to see it, nor do I think global warming will harm a thing before people wipe themselves out and it self-corrects.




Obviously you missed my point. Which was that it must be very embarrassing to believe in wild conspiracy theories (that the worlds scientists have banded together to fool humanity into believing the burning of coal and oil is leading to global catastrophe). For what purpose the worlds scientists might band together in this nefarious conspiracy is not explained (except to say it is because they are embarrassed about all the grant money that has been given to them or, as you said, that they have "taken".

Certainly, I have attacked your ridiculous conspiracy theory and I would expect that holding such unsupported beliefs would be embarrassing, at least in the company of people who were more informed. Hence my point about it being easier to do when posting anonymously.

If nothing else, the porkers in America could do with a little more biking to work.

 

[piotrek91]

Unfortunately, no flux capacitor found in my engine bay. Shall I check under the seats?

you need the model with I-Eloop to get the capacitor.

 

[MikeM.]

Why not enjoy life and not worry about it? I don't think we'll be alive to see it, nor do I think global warming will harm a thing before people wipe themselves out and it self-corrects.

You mistake "worrying" about earths warming with doing something about it. Transitioning to clean and sustainable energy can create economic prosperity the likes of which cannot be matched by oil and especially not coal. A cleaner environment, better health and lower health care costs are side benefits. In this world there are the givers and there are the takers. And I think the issue of global warming is helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If nothing else, the porkers in America could do with a little more biking to work.

I'm pleased that you were able to think of one benefit. But the benefits of tacking warming are numerous. it's wrong to think that solving global warming requires worrying about it. That's the perspective of a thinker rather than a doer. Tackling the problem requires new technologies, new infrastructure, better housing, more innovative buildings, more technologically advanced vehicles and more advanced energy production and distribution. In short, a lot of work, not a lot of worry.

I think the conservatives will climb aboard in great numbers once they can see it is a "war" on global warming. And it's a war worth fighting.

 

[Rarebit]

The limit to rights is not easy to work out, but there is an often-overlooked guideline that helps: "my rights end at the tip of my nose". Simply put, I have the right to control myself, but side effects that flow from pursuing my rights which adversely affect others' rights are out of bounds.

So, do I have the right to pollute someone else's air? To disturb their harmony? To pollute the common air shed or waterways? The "tip of my nose" guideline gives us a starting point for talking it through.

 

[Unobtanium]

[/COLOR]You mistake "worrying" about earths warming with doing something about it. Transitioning to clean and sustainable energy can create economic prosperity the likes of which cannot be matched by oil and especially not coal. A cleaner environment, better health and lower health care costs are side benefits. In this world there are the givers and there are the takers. And I think the issue of global warming is helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I'm talking about people who cheat themselves out of enjoyment by driving boring vehicles when they really would like to be in something fun. Things like that. Not "Hey, why not use hydro-electric since we have a massive river right here by town..."




I'm pleased that you were able to think of one benefit. But the benefits of tacking warming are numerous. it's wrong to think that solving global warming requires worrying about it. That's the perspective of a thinker rather than a doer. Tackling the problem requires new technologies, new infrastructure, better housing, more innovative buildings, more technologically advanced vehicles and more advanced energy production and distribution. In short, a lot of work, not a lot of worry.

...and THAT, is the mindset of a DREAMER! Why? Well, my concern...you can do better housing. It's called ICF. It costs 25% more in my area than typical methods. A majority of the richest people in this country live in my area, and you know how many ICF houses I see? VERY FEW! So, to make it a reality, along comes a law (a'la R12 ban...), and then what? Well, by volume, cost will drop (economy of scale), but it's still going to give people less house for their money, so now the .gov is telling someone "no, you can't have what your parents have. You need to pay more/go smaller. We don't care what your money/family situation is"

THAT is the issue that I see. Now, if you can afford it, and you are looking at 2 cars, and like both, and one has 50% of the emissions the other does? Sure. No-brainer.

I think the conservatives will climb aboard in great numbers once they can see it is a "war" on global warming. And it's a war worth fighting.

It's a very expensive war and I think when you/if you feel the impact of it, you will be rather upset. You ARE the kind of guy who buys the 2.0 because it's cheaper to operate, in part. Well, the war on Global Warming is VERY expensive to the end consumer.

Universal Healthcare is an example of how I see the war on Global Warming going. Stoopid expensive, screwing the end consumer, all for a pipe dream.

 

[Unobtanium]

The limit to rights is not easy to work out, but there is an often-overlooked guideline that helps: "my rights end at the tip of my nose". Simply put, I have the right to control myself, but side effects that flow from pursuing my rights which adversely affect others' rights are out of bounds.

So, do I have the right to pollute someone else's air? To disturb their harmony? To pollute the common air shed or waterways? The "tip of my nose" guideline gives us a starting point for talking it through.

What about the man who walks? Your CX-5 is an abomination to him, maybe? The Amish could judge everyone? Where do you draw the line? WHO draws the line? All very disturbing quandaries.

 

[MikeM.]

You ARE the kind of guy who buys the 2.0 because it's cheaper to operate, in part.

My draw to the 2.0L was the efficiency (of which cost is one part). Then Mazda released the 2.5L (which gets you to your destination at the same moment) and half the owners complained mileage was not quite what they expected. Go figure.

Well, the war on Global Warming is VERY expensive to the end consumer.

Not really, the cost of doing nothing, business as usual, is astronomical! The "war on warming" will be a real value and SAVE (not cost) trillions of dollars! It will be the first war since WWII that paid for itself. Plus, the troops won't come home worse for the experience. The war on warming will have very few negative impacts, mostly to wealthy big oil fat cats. Unless they re-invest in renewable which they will when they see we are not buying into their warming hoax theory.

Universal Healthcare is an example of how I see the war on Global Warming going. Stoopid expensive, screwing the end consumer, all for a pipe dream.

Universal healthcare is how the entire civilized world does healthcare (major exception, USA). We're not quite there yet. Big insurance and big pharma made sure of that. That's why the US has the most expensive healthcare in the entire world. And the results are worse than most other developed nations. Look at deaths during childbirth. Look at hospital infection rates, the list goes on and on.

 

[Unobtanium]

You ARE the kind of guy who buys the 2.0 because it's cheaper to operate, in part.[\quote]

My draw to the 2.0L was the efficiency (of which cost is one part). Then Mazda released the 2.5L (which gets you to your destination at the same moment) and half the owners complained mileage was not quite what they expected. Go figure.



Not really, the cost of doing nothing, business as usual, is astronomical! The "war on warming" will be a real value and SAVE (not cost) trillions of dollars! It will be the first war since WWII that paid for itself. Plus, the troops won't come home worse for the experience. The war on warming will have very few negative impacts, mostly to wealthy big oil fat cats. Unless they re-invest in renewable which they will when they see we are not buying into their warming hoax theory.



Universal healthcare is how the entire civilized world does healthcare (major exception, USA). We're not quite there yet. Big insurance and big pharma made sure of that. That's why the US has the most expensive healthcare in the entire world. And the results are worse than most other developed nations. Look at deaths during childbirth. Look at hospital infection rates, the list goes on and on.

I think your understanding of the war on warming is similar to your understanding of UHC.

For example, you have painted the US in a bad light regarding UHC, and then blamed "big Pharma" and "Big insurance" for the failure to (implied) "Be like the rest of developed nations".

Well, ecology is not my job. healthcare is. So let me explain...


Insurance has skyrocketed in cost...as have deductibles. Why? Because the 500# smoker pays the same rates as the healthy marathon runner. The 500# smoker will end up costing insurance a LOT more than will the healthy person. So how do you think this is offset, since they must both be billed the same? Hint: It's not looking good for the healthy person.

Used to, the unhealthy person paid for their lifestyle choices. Now, EVERYONE pays for their lifestyle choices.

So many people refuse to carry insurance, and simply pay the unconstitutional penalty at the end of the year. My father had to do that for a while, until he changed how he files his taxes, and now, he can't work as much or he will "make too much", lose his subsidy, and be paying $1300/mo again for insurance. Oh, and his deductible is around $6K. It used to cost him several hundred dollars, and be MUCH LOWER, and he was able to see the doctors he wanted to see. But now he's joined "the rest of the civilized world..."

So what IS it like in Europe? Well, let's take a look at France. I hate the French because we have always fought their wars for them, and they are about as liberal a country as one could ever encounter. They are loving their new Muslim refugees, too. I hear they apologized for the terrorist attack on their news artists. "She had it coming, it's her fault for wearing the short skirt" seemed to be the vibe...

Anyway...how IS France and their UHC that people like you wish they had?

Well, Mike? I don't know what you make/made (if you are retired), so I'll just take a stab at $100K a year. If you made more, or less, the point still stands. Let's see how much you would pay on taxes to the federal government for 2015 at $100K a year (single, no dependents, claiming HOH, Born 1970)...
I'm seeing $18,219, Federal.


So what about the French?

In France, you would owe $41,000, Federal.

Roughly the price of your car, each year, additional.

You're right, America isn't quite that bad, yet. It will be getting there, though.


Oh....

....and do you know WHY our infant mortality rates and nosocomial infection rates are so high? It's because people feel so entitled. They demand antibiotics for EVERYTHING. They stay in hospitals well past the point that they should go home because they pretend they are helpless/demand extra treatment, etc. which leads to longer stays, more infections, and more resistant bacteria. As to infant mortality rates...same applies. Lots of pain medication lowers APGAR scores, etc. etc.

People in America are OVER treated very very often. Why? Because they want to be, and because healthcare is based on making people happy, as that is tied to hospital expenses being paid (customer surveys literally determine reimbursement rates). In fact, there exists proof that happy patients have worse outcomes than unhappy patients.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/6223

Universal Healthcare measures in the US are costing dollars, AND lives. So really, you're just piling fuel on the fire of why I have UHC.

See, my opinion is based on working in healthcare. Yours is based on...? What?

Thus I also call into question both your opinion, and mine, regarding Global Warming. How "off" are the both of us? What is going on "on the inside" that we don't see? See what I mean?

 

[Rarebit]

What about the man who walks? Your CX-5 is an abomination to him, maybe? The Amish could judge everyone? Where do you draw the line? WHO draws the line? All very disturbing quandaries.

What about him? How does my driving a car encroach on his rights?

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

In civilized Europe right now, citizens get to share their healthcare taxes (s*** all taxes) with increasing numbers of "refugees" who don't fight for their own country, but have no problem moving to, demanding free stuff, and trying to islamify each place they inhabit.

 

[Unobtanium]

What about him? How does my driving a car encroach on his rights?

You're adding C02 to his air...

 

[Unobtanium]

In civilized Europe right now, citizens get to share their healthcare taxes (s*** all taxes) with increasing numbers of "refugees" who don't fight for their own country, but have no problem moving to, demanding free stuff, and trying to islamify each place they inhabit.

Yep.

 

[Rarebit]

You're adding C02 to his air...

As he is to mine.

We have a system of laws that specify the extent to which I can do that. I follow it. Where's the problem?

 

[MikeM.]

For example, you have painted the US in a bad light regarding UHC, and then blamed "big Pharma" and "Big insurance" for the failure to (implied) "Be like the rest of developed nations".

Yes. Single payer would have huge efficiencies of scale as well as much less billing and paperwork and passing the buck but lobbying by big pharma and big insurance is precisely why single payer didn't have the necessary votes in Congress and we ended up with very weak reform instead. Yes, we have a system not much different than before but a little better. At least my private insurance premiums haven't risen nearly as much as they did the 5 or 6 years before the Affordable Health Care Act was passed and the Act stopped the worst abuses carried out by health insurance companies.

Because the 500# smoker pays the same rates as the healthy marathon runner. The 500# smoker will end up costing insurance a LOT more than will the healthy person. So how do you think this is offset, since they must both be billed the same?

That is simply false and it demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The AHCA is designed to reward healthy lifestyle choices and every policy available charges the smoker higher rates than the non-smoker. You may work in the healthcare industry but you need to brush up on your facts before you go spouting your ignorance on subject matter you profess to be an expert in. I just love getting "schooled" by a 29 year old who doesn't know what he's talking about.

So many people refuse to carry insurance, and simply pay the unconstitutional penalty at the end of the year.

Wrong again. The constitutionality of the "penalty" was brought before the Supreme Court (which of course is the final arbitrator of exactly what is constitutional and what is not). The Supreme Court (of which a majority was appointed by republicans) clearly ruled that the "penalty" was not unconstitutional. So, once again, you need to brush up on your facts.

My father had to do that for a while, until he changed how he files his taxes, and now, he can't work as much or he will "make too much", lose his subsidy, and be paying $1300/mo again for insurance. Oh, and his deductible is around $6K. It used to cost him several hundred dollars, and be MUCH LOWER, and he was able to see the doctors he wanted to see. But now he's joined "the rest of the civilized world..."

Wrong again! Most of the rest of the civilized world is single payer. The US is anything but. It's all about excessive profits for big pharma, lawyers and big insurance. So, your father did not join "the rest of the civilized world". I don't see how a healthcare expert could fail to understand this important distinction between our expensive, ripoff healthcare system and single-payer.

Well, Mike? I don't know what you make/made (if you are retired), so I'll just take a stab at $100K a year. If you made more, or less, the point still stands. Let's see how much you would pay on taxes to the federal government for 2015 at $100K a year (single, no dependents, claiming HOH, Born 1970)...
I'm seeing $18,219, Federal.


So what about the French?

In France, you would owe $41,000, Federal.

Roughly the price of your car, each year, additional.

Christ, you conservatives will always find something to b**** about. Personally, I feel good when I pay a lot of income/capital gains taxes because it means there's a lot more where that came from. It's a rare situation when a citizen is taxed and the income is not there to pay it (this does happen and tax law needs to be reformed to address this kind of injustice). But I've paid more in taxes in one year than you've earned in your lifetime and I was happy to do it. What I'm not happy about is paying over $10,000/year in health insurance premiums that I have never once used and the one time my wife needed it for a broken bone that required intricate shoulder surgery, it was shocking how much we had to pay out of pocket (about $20,000). And, if I do need it, I'm still going to be paying 20-50% out of pocket (and that's after I've covered my $2000 deductible). Healthcare in the US is a rip-off. My American friend bought an old farmhouse in France. He loves it there and raves about how much better the healthcare is there vs. what he experienced during his 30 plus years working as an American diplomat.

Oh....

....and do you know WHY our infant mortality rates and nosocomial infection rates are so high? It's because people feel so entitled. They demand antibiotics for EVERYTHING. They stay in hospitals well past the point that they should go home because they pretend they are helpless/demand extra treatment, etc. which leads to longer stays, more infections, and more resistant bacteria. As to infant mortality rates...same applies. Lots of pain medication lowers APGAR scores, etc. etc.

So your blaming the patient because doctors prescribe unnecessary antibiotics and narcotics?? That sounds like a failing of our big pharma driven healthcare. Most strong narcotics are not even legal in France because they are about healthy outcomes, not pampering their drug riddled patients with narcotics while the drug companies laugh all the way to the bank. But the influence of big pharma keeps them flowing in the US. Since when does the patient write their own narcotic prescriptions? Because that's essentially what you're claiming happens in the US.

See, my opinion is based on working in healthcare. Yours is based on...? What?

Actual facts, not the ignorance you tried to pass off as knowledge above. You see, Valentino Rossi may be a 9 time world champion road racer but that doesn't mean he knows how to work on a motorcycle. You are just a peon in the healthcare industry and yet you claim this makes you an expert in world healthcare. But the fallacies you presented above as fact demonstrate to all just how shallow your understanding is.

 

[p38cyq]

Can one of the Mods close this thread please?

 

[Unobtanium]

Yes. Single payer would have huge efficiencies of scale as well as much less billing and paperwork and passing the buck but lobbying by big pharma and big insurance is precisely why single payer didn't have the necessary votes in Congress and we ended up with very weak reform instead. Yes, we have a system not much different than before but a little better. At least my private insurance premiums haven't risen nearly as much as they did the 5 or 6 years before the Affordable Health Care Act was passed and the Act stopped the worst abuses carried out by health insurance companies. My father's went up immensely. Do you supply your own, or is this corporate?



That is simply false and it demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The AHCA is designed to reward healthy lifestyle choices and every policy available charges the smoker higher rates than the non-smoker. You may work in the healthcare industry but you need to brush up on your facts before you go spouting your ignorance on subject matter you profess to be an expert in. I just love getting "schooled" by a 29 year old Age is a big thing for you. I've noticed that in your posts. Care to elaborate? who doesn't know what he's talking about.
You're right on smoking. Seems that's it. Also, they must provide free smoking cessation tools. So a 500# non-smoker with diabetes, CHF, and COPD...pays the same as me.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-smokers/



Wrong again. The constitutionality of the "penalty" was brought before the Supreme Court (which of course is the final arbitrator of exactly what is constitutional and what is not). The Supreme Court (of which a majority was appointed by republicans) clearly ruled that the "penalty" was not unconstitutional. So, once again, you need to brush up on your facts.
Ummmm...maybe you need to tell them that. Because...
May be Subject to a Tax Penalty

* The Essential Blue Freedom plan does not meet the federal government’s new “minimum essential coverage” requirements. If you purchase this plan and it is your only health insurance plan, you will have to pay a tax penalty in 2016 when you file your 2015 income tax forms, unless you receive a waiver from the federal government.
https://secure.arkansasbluecross.co...uctId=ARBCBSEBF03&premium=60.21&planYear=2016




Wrong again! Most of the rest of the civilized world is single payer. The US is anything but. It's all about excessive profits for big pharma, lawyers and big insurance. So, your father did not join "the rest of the civilized world". I don't see how a healthcare expert could fail to understand this important distinction between our expensive, ripoff healthcare system and single-payer.
-Pharma is global. Your argument doesn't hold water when you are saying it's a US problem.
-Lawyers only make money because of the court systems, and that affects everything from auto insurance to healthcare costs.
-Big insurance...UHC is costing big because it demands senseless medical proceedures. BCBS lost millions due to this, however, most BCBS programs are non-profit.
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...ngs-to-know-about-blue-cross-blue-shield.html



Christ, you conservatives will always find something to b**** about. Personally, I feel good when I pay a lot of income/capital gains taxes because it means there's a lot more where that came from. It's a rare situation when a citizen is taxed and the income is not there to pay it (this does happen and tax law needs to be reformed to address this kind of injustice). But I've paid more in taxes in one year than you've earned in your lifetime and I was happy to do it. Somehow I doubt that. If it's true, I'm impressed that a person of your means is driving a CX-5 instead of an i8.What I'm not happy about is paying over $10,000/year in health insurance premiums that I have never once used and the one time my wife needed it for a broken bone that required intricate shoulder surgery, it was shocking how much we had to pay out of pocket (about $20,000) That's not bad. My father payed much more, and he maybe made $30-40K? Such is being a business owner...net vs. gross vs. brackets.... And, if I do need it, I'm still going to be paying 20-50% out of pocket (and that's after I've covered my $2000 deductible) Pretty low deductible.. Healthcare in the US is a rip-off. My American friend bought an old farmhouse in France. He loves it there and raves about how much better the healthcare is there vs. what he experienced during his 30 plus years working as an American diplomat. Sounds like he's retired. I'd imagine retirement in France isn't bad. It's working and losing 41% of your income that I'd find absurd.






So your blaming the patient because doctors prescribe unnecessary antibiotics and narcotics?? How much patient care have you done in your life? That sounds like a failing of our big pharma driven healthcare. No. It sounds like the patient-driven healthcare system that we have, where patients determine what treatments they get because they b**** and whine and hospital reimbursement is based on keeping them from bitching and whining. Cheaper just to eat the cost of that round of meds than to get bad reimbursement scores. Most strong narcotics are not even legal in France because they are about healthy outcomes, not pampering their drug riddled patients with narcotics while the drug companies laugh all the way to the bank. Again, you don't seem to get it. We have to do that in America because of Universal Healthcare. The bill goes unpaid if the patient leaves unhappy. So? We medicate. Gotta get reimbursement from your wonderful UHC plan, and that means happy happy happy! But the influence of big pharma keeps them flowing in the US. Since when does the patient write their own narcotic prescriptions? Because that's essentially what you're claiming happens in the US. Yes it is. Anyone who walks into an ER can get their morphine and dilaudid. It's automatic pretty much. I have had patients whine to every MD who enters their room, knowing FULL WELL that they drug seeking, until one finally relents and orders them their fix. It's as close as it gets to picking up the pen/keyboard and doing it themselves as one can get without actually doing so. You really don't understand hospitals and what goes on there, based on your commentary.




Actual facts, not the ignorance you tried to pass off as knowledge above. You see, Valentino Rossi may be a 9 time world champion road racer but that doesn't mean he knows how to work on a motorcycle. You are just a peon in the healthcare industry and yet you claim this makes you an expert in world healthcare. But the fallacies you presented above as fact demonstrate to all just how shallow your understanding is.

I am not an expert in world healthcare, but I damn well know what actually goes on in a real hospital, and I didn't read it on the internet. I'm glad I'm headed to bed and not drinking coffee, because the fact that you wrote what you did about patients proscribing their own narcotics? Yeah. You're clueless, and if you really knew, you'd be so pissed at what you're bankrolling. You'd probably smile at my ruined keyboard though, had I been drinking that coffee. You just don't have a clue how hospitals work on the organic side of the house. Apparently not on the financial side, either, regarding your comments on the money situation. You're right about one thing though, it DOES need an overhaul. It just wasn't the one it got.

That said...you're either full of crap about how much you make, or you just might like how 'Murica does things, because I'd have moved by now if I made 7 figures a year like you just claimed, if I were unhappy somewhere. So either come clean, or move, or create a weak excuse about why you can't move. I suspect the latter will happen, because by all accounts, the French would love you.

 

[Unobtanium]

Can one of the Mods close this thread please?

Yeah, I'd pay over 50% of my income in taxes in your country. I'd hate this thread, too!

 

[MikeM.]

My father's went up immensely. Do you supply your own, or is this corporate?

I've been buying my own for over 20 years. When I was between 18-30, I was uninsured, thankfully nothing happened that I couldn't handle on my own. I'm on Premera Blue Cross. This year I got a $250 refund because the Affordable Health Care Act limits the amount insurance companies spend on advertising, corporate bonuses/salaries, etc. as a percent of premiums collected. A certain percentage of total premiums collected MUST go to paying medical bills. Premera was over the AHCA limits and, under the Act, had to refund the excess to customers like me. In the past it would have gone to even bigger bonuses for the CEO's who dreamed up new ways to deny payment for medically necessary procedures. The likely reason your fathers policy went up is because the AHCA mandates that policies actually cover stuff people really need. In the past, people would think they were insured against disaster but the exclusion list was so long it was common for the medically insured to go bankrupt. Most of those "gotcha" exclusions have been eliminated. In other words, your fathers policy might have higher premiums and deductibles, but the insurance company will actually have to pay if, for example, your father needs 4 years of expensive cancer treatments to stay alive. In the past he would have been SOL.

I'm glad I'm headed to bed and not drinking coffee, because the fact that you wrote what you did about patients proscribing their own narcotics? Yeah. You're clueless

I didn't mean to imply patients physically wrote their own prescriptions. However, you said one of the reasons the US healthcare system has a history of poor health results, is excessive over-prescribing of pain meds. Specifically, "Lots of pain medication lowers APGAR scores, etc. etc." That sounds like a failing of our healthcare system that can't be blamed on differences between American newborns and newborns in countries around the world that have higher newborn health scores. It's up to the healthcare specialists to determine how many drugs are appropriate for the best outcome.

You said You're right about one thing though, it DOES need an overhaul. It just wasn't the one it got.

And on this we agree! We got a Band-Aid when we needed a tourniquet!

That said...you're either full of crap about how much you make, or you just might like how 'Murica does things, because I'd have moved by now if I made 7 figures a year like you just claimed, if I were unhappy somewhere.

I don't make that much every year, my income is highly variable because 95% of it comes from "casino capitalism". I'm not unhappy in the US, it's actually a great place to live with some amazing financial opportunities. I do love my country but I'm sad when I see it failing so many hard working Americans.

 

[Unobtanium]

I've been buying my own for over 20 years. When I was between 18-30, I was uninsured, thankfully nothing happened that I couldn't handle on my own. I'm on Premera Blue Cross. This year I got a $250 refund because the Affordable Health Care Act limits the amount insurance companies spend on advertising, corporate bonuses/salaries, etc. as a percent of premiums collected. A certain percentage of total premiums collected MUST go to paying medical bills. Premera was over the AHCA limits and, under the Act, had to refund the excess to customers like me. In the past it would have gone to even bigger bonuses for the CEO's who dreamed up new ways to deny payment for medically necessary procedures. The likely reason your fathers policy went up is because the AHCA mandates that policies actually cover stuff people really need. In the past, people would think they were insured against disaster but the exclusion list was so long it was common for the medically insured to go bankrupt. Most of those "gotcha" exclusions have been eliminated. In other words, your fathers policy might have higher premiums and deductibles, but the insurance company will actually have to pay if, for example, your father needs 4 years of expensive cancer treatments to stay alive. In the past he would have been SOL.[/COLOR]






I didn't mean to imply patients physically wrote their own prescriptions. However, you said one of the reasons the US healthcare system has a history of poor health results, is excessive over-prescribing of pain meds. Specifically, "Lots of pain medication lowers APGAR scores, etc. etc." That sounds like a failing of our healthcare system that can't be blamed on differences between American newborns and newborns in countries around the world that have higher newborn health scores. It's up to the healthcare specialists to determine how many drugs are appropriate for the best outcome.




And on this we agree! We got a Band-Aid when we needed a tourniquet!




I don't make that much every year, my income is highly variable because 95% of it comes from "casino capitalism". I'm not unhappy in the US, it's actually a great place to live with some amazing financial opportunities. I do love my country but I'm sad when I see it failing so many hard working Americans.

I can't speak to the intricacies of his current t and former plan, except to say that he pays more for his healthcare, insurance and does not get to see his MDs anymore and had to start with new ones.

People in America love pain meds and have dramatized childbirth beyond belief. Epidural at request, etc. You want low death rates at birth? I'm a fan of birth via midwife in uncomplicated pregnancies, based on the data I've seen. Also, it's only partly about outcomes in healthcare. It's also about happiness. Patients need to be 100% happy, and sometimes that means unnecessary treatments and drugs. Like it or not, hospitals have to pay people to work there, so they need reimbursement for services, so people often get what they want...medically indicated or not. I can't count the number of times I've dosed simple headaches with morphine. Then you have insurance and legality forcing over analysis

One of the ER docs I worked with summed it up well..."I can't just check to see if this patient is having a heart attack...I have to prove they could not possibly be having a heart attack." Think about that for a while.

Also...psych placement only if admitted to the hospital in some cases, same for rehab, etc. It's a damn mess of "prove it", and it's very costly.