|
|
Re: Democracy - how to achieve it?
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 9:25 PM
|
|
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>
> Paul also thinks the US is in a position to follow Sweden, but I think
> psychologically the US is not mature enough at this point. Remember
> the US and Sweden all but severed diplomatic relations during the
> Vietnam War. Sweden was highly critical of the US in this chapter.
>
> This proves that the Feds have a very different mindset from the
> Swedes. One cannot expect the Feds to have anything close to the
> collective intelligence of Swedes, if history is any guide.
>
> That's why I think my interest in letting companies offer health
> packages that take people out of North America for some procedures and
> treatments, if not physically then jurisdictionally.
>
> Perhaps I could buy into a Swedish outfit that helped run a network of
> hospitals and hospital cruise ships. My contribution to the plan
> would be deducted from my pay check. I could do this without
> surrendering US citizenship.
>
> I can well imagine global health care networks that offer care
> packages in various shapes and sizes. It might be nice if the Feds
> were a part of the solution, not part of the problem, but evidence
> suggests such competence is not there. We can't afford to just sit on
> our hands and wait for the Feds to become intelligent, contributing
> world citizens.
>
> Kirby
All of the above is just more BS about "those evil Feds".
Would Kirby have been in favor of "those evil Feds" helping blacks in
the South during the civil rights struggles of the 20th century,
knowing that "those evil Feds" via federal laws were the only hope for
those blacks? Or would he have promoted then what he promotes here,
promoting that since "those Feds are evil", the blacks would just have
to accept having to go to the bathroom in buckets they had to carry
with them? (This last is a reference to the fact of life for blacks
during segregation in the South, where if they traveled, they would
have to take buckets to pee in and defecate in, since the vast
majority if public places did not allow blacks into the restrooms -
they did not have two separate facilities for the differences
"races".) Would Kirby have been against all that federal civil rights
legislation?
Meanwhile, the suffering and death toll mounts in the US because of
lack or health care because people like Kirby stand in the way of the
only thing that could end all this suffering and death, which is
"those evil Feds" doing today what they did then in the 20th century,
realize that we are in a civil rights crisis that only "the evil Feds"
have the power to end, and use that power and end it.
One wonders because of how he talks so negatively about the US
government whether Kirby is actually promoting the killing of Medicare
and Medicaid (note that half of Medicaid goes to fund nursing home
care for poor old people), which would result in throwing all the old
people out into the streets and letting them all rot to death with no
health care or nursing home care.
Yes, that is what would be guaranteed to happen because I proved in
"Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7934201
and in prior posts
"Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933893
and
"Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933416
including all the links I gave that mathematically private charity
could never meet any more than a tiny few percentage points of the
total need.
I mean, all I'm talking about is simply more funding for these
existing programs so that the out of pocket costs could be lowered and
so that they could be expanded to everyone in the country who would
want to be on them.
I think people like Kirby have zero appreciation for how helpful
Medicare and Medicaid are to those who are on these programs - and how
viciously cruel it is to promote that those on these programs should
be thrown off them, or to promote that those not on those programs
should not be allowed on them even though these programs are the only
hope for the vast majority of those not on them to end their suffering
from no health care.
Note: And no BS that these programs are poorly run. Medicare Parts A
and B are vastly better run than private insurance companies in terms
of what is called the medical loss ratio, which is the percentage of
money going into the plan that actually gets spent on health care.
Roughly 97% of all Medicare Parts A and B money actually goes to
health care, while the average for the private health insurance
industry has been plummeting to where it now is only about 80%:
See what former insurance company executive Wendell Potter says - he
is now telling the truth about what they actually do.
"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2419859
"WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that
investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's
unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I
mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much
of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay
medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the
industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit
insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time
that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar
was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to
pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.
...
There was a time, in the early 1990s, when health insurance companies
devoted more than 95 cents out of every premium dollar to paying
doctors and hospitals for taking care of their members. No more. Since
President Bill Clinton's health reform plan died 15 years ago, the
health insurance industry has come to be dominated by a handful of
insurance companies that answer to Wall Street investors, and they
have changed that basic math. Today, insurers only pay about 81 cents
of each premium dollar on actual medical care. The rest is consumed by
rising profits, grotesque executive salaries, huge administrative
expenses, the cost of weeding out people with pre-existing conditions
and claims review designed to wear out patients with denials and
disapprovals of the care they need the most."
And Kirby thinks this obscenity by the insurance companies is good,
and at the same it is horrible what "those evil Feds" are doing,
saving countless lives and preventing vast amounts of suffering via
Medicare and Medicaid with that 97% efficiency?
I say it again: Let no one complain about "harsh light".
|
|
