NoGodBlog.com

The plan will also provide special grants to small employers to help them cover the costs for their employees

That's a give-away to private insurance companies and would rather quickly put the folks of PA, presently uninsured included, in a potentially worse situation.

Socialized medical insurance is the answer not this sort of pandering.

It'd nicer to see health care rather than insurance care!

Justice for all, huh? Where do we get the money to cover everybody? And does it matter that the taxpayer will have to dig deeper yet to get health care for even those who choose to smoke, drink excessively, overeat, etc., etc., etc. Does it matter that a smoker can find money for cigarettes but not for insurance? Or that the drinker can always find money for booze, or the fattie can always find money for junk food? There are no easy answers, but the bottom line is always gtoing to be how do we pay for what we would like to see happen.

I've heard Obama say he plans to make health care more affordable so that everybody can afford it. How does that work, I wonder? Sounds like he's going to be praying for a miracle. Where are you, Jesus, when we need you?

No thanks.

-mxracer652, Pittsburgh, PA

Expanding the role of religion beyond the wall of the church is not helpful.

I agree with what. Why are we having insurance companies making a healthy profit from providing access to health care.

The money to provide the "lower" cost insurance is coming from your taxes. In effect you are paying whatever the health care costs PLUS whatever profit the insurance companies want to get PLUS the salaries and benefits provided to the HIGHLY paid insurance executives. PLUS the no limits health insurance provided to your congress critter. PLUS the cost of highly paid insurance lobbyists and I'm guessing they have unlimited isurance plans as well. You are paying for all of that.

No god, no sheeple.

A year or so ago, it was discovered that Wal-Junk employees are the largest burden on PAs state welfare programs. Allowing even more shit companies to suckle at the teat of social welfare is the exact opposite of what we should do.

rna2dna,
UPMC (Univ of Pittsburgh Medical Center) is the second largest employer in Pennsylvania and is a non profit.

I agree with MXracer and God Free. "No thanks" to religious hypocritical pandering. I'm pretty sure the $13 million dollars spent on the megachurch 2 miles from here could've provided a lot of advantage to the local medically disadvantaged population. Instead they got a pretty building with a pointy steeple on top. How helpful is that? Oh yeah, that prayer thing. You can't fix stupid.

I work out, eat my fruits and veggies, don't smoke or touch fast food (including soda). Why should I pay outta the ass for those that actively harm their health and then cry because their scripts are $500 a month? I repeat, you can't fix stupid.

All I need is accident insurance. I wouldn't even consider going to a doctor unless I'm certain I will die if I don't. Most are nothing more that highly paid drug pushers.

cry4turtles

You already are paying for the care of others and you will continue to do so. The only question is how to keep costs down. The present system in the US is simply not up to the challenge.

If we pay for the care of others who actually cared for themselves, it would keep costs down. How to start? Rip soda machines out of schools. Stop feeding students government subsidised junk, and make the cafeteria as much a learning place as a classroom.

These efforts would pay off tremendously in the long run by making diabetes, heart disease, and cancer as rare as it used to be.

Of course we could just pray.

mxracer652,

I don't know why you directed your comment at me. You are addressing a different piece of the puzzle. You can't fix a flat tire by putting more gas in the tank.

The insurance industry is a service sink not a service provider, particularly within health care.

rna,
I was just simply countering to show that a large healthcare provider exists that is a non profit.

You seem to be pissed off that someone is profiting from your health.

I gotta laugh every time I see/hear the term "non-profit". All they have to do is raise people's salaries (typically the heads of corporations) so that there are no profits.
"Hey look! We're non-profit!"

That's it! I'm going non-profit!

mxracer652,

You are the one using the "pissed off" and "suckle at the teat" words.

So why do the insurance companies "suckle at the teat" of health care?

Profit is fine for those that are providing the care. The insurance companies don't provide care.

rna2dna

Profit is fine for those that are providing the care. The insurance companies don't provide care.

For-profit insurance is an inflationary force in the dynamics of health care cost.

rna,
That's what health insurance costs in a country full of fatties with an 'it's not my fault' mentality.

What,
That seems kind of hypocritical coming from a for profit MD.

So cry4turtles... what is good for you should be good for me too?

mxracer652:

That's what health insurance costs in a country full of fatties with an 'it's not my fault' mentality.

Are you sure that fatties are the cause of the high cost of health insurance? I always thought it was motocross racers - lots of strained muscles and broken bones.

The real key to good health (for most people) is not medicine, technology or insurance sytems at all, it's living life a certain way, a healthy way. The 'fatties' and all those substance abusers both illegal and legal are contributors to why any health care scheme will be a failure. And the ones who will take it on the chin the most, as usual are healthy people, since they pay the most in comparison to what they consume whether it be an insurance system or any kind of socialized system

I really feel anyone who thinks they have a 'solution' to health care just doesn't get economics. Of course you can always win an election by promisinig people something for free. Why can't people walk into a store and get all the food and clothes they want for free? Somewhere, somebody is paying.

When the common man is absolved of resposibity for his own well being, that responsibility turns to the state which in turn requires greater power and control over all our lives in order to fullfill that obligation. If by a healthcare 'solution' one means that everyone 'gets' whatever thay need, I say the health care problem is insoluble.

Nicely said, joelwe. Thank you.

mxracer652,

Who pays for the health care overhead caused by the insurance companies (see my previous comments for some examples of overhead, there are many more, feel free to add some)?

Jeff_R

Are you sure that fatties are the cause of the high cost of health insurance? I always thought it was motocross racers - lots of strained muscles and broken bones.

Zing! You get it. No strains though, just torn ACLs & dislocated shoulders.

rna,
Overhead is a necessary evil. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I am nothing but 100% overhead. If you're a desk jockey like me, you're overhead too.

What do you propose to do to fix the situation?

Mxracer

That seems kind of hypocritical coming from a for profit MD.

Really. How so?

Overhead is a necessary evil.

If you want reasonably priced health insurance and better outcomes you simply are not going to get there with the present system. And it WILL get worse.

mxracer652,

Overhead is *sometimes* necessary but, not evil. However, with regard to health care, insurance companies are not necessary, they are unnecessary overhead, they simply add to the cost of providing health care. Whatever it costs to provide health care, the cost will be higher if insurance companies are included.

Your being an engineer has nothing to do with insurance companies suckling at the teat (in your words) of health care.

So cry4turtles... what is good for you should be good for me too?

Kosher, I apologize if I'm off target on your question, but yes, what is good from me IS good for you. Apples are good for me, and for you. Exercise is good for me, and good for you. Abstaining from soda is good for me, and good for you.

Maintaining health is not rocket science, but it takes courage to go against a decadent eating culture that consumes too much "pseudo-food", and that is the root of our health crisis. Make no bones about it--the food we eat causes more damage than good. If Americans were healthy, there would be less chronic illness, and we would see our doctors less. Hence, less cost.

But then big pharma would make more commercials and would convince us that the extra energy and vitality we feel from our healthy diets should be treated with the latest drug. And millions of braindead Americans would once again rush to see their doctors.

Can't fix stupid.

I wonder if everyone took on the healthiest way of life and lived an extra 10 years draining Social Security and Medicare, what the national repercussions would be economically. Maybe we should all be careful what we wish for.

joelwe, a healthy lifestyle should not drain SS or Medicare. A healthy lifestyle means a limited need for "sickcare". What good is living to 100 if you're sick and frail, especially if sick and frail can be avoided? However, I do agree that if we successfully extend life expectation (which is decreasing in the US), we'll seriously have to consider population management (everybody cover their mouths in horror now).

I hope to be a centarian some day, and it will be WITHOUT the help of any mainstream doctor.

Apples anyone?

Cry4turtles

Diet is not some magic path to good health. If you are eating a low fat (no transfat) and low cholesterol diet then you are doing about all that you can with respect to diet. Exercise is what has been missing in American's lives (and increasingly the rest of the world). The lay press does us all a disservice through their harping on diet. And unfortunately there are plenty of folks that just parrot the nonsense.

rna,

Overhead is *sometimes* necessary but, not evil. However, with regard to health care, insurance companies are not necessary, they are unnecessary overhead, they simply add to the cost of providing health care. Whatever it costs to provide health care, the cost will be higher if insurance companies are included.

If no insurance companies existed, we'd all be left individually negotiating with the various flavors of MDs depending on what ailed us.

What is your solution?

what,
If it's OK for you to make money as a MD, why is it not OK for healthcare providers?

The lay press does us all a disservice through their harping on diet. And unfortunately there are plenty of folks that just parrot the nonsense.

It doesn't matter how much you exercise, you're not going to be able to burn off a steady diet of pizza, brownies & beer.

The health of the US would rapidly increase if health care costs were based on actuarial costs. Nothing motivates people like money.

Mxracer

If it's OK for you to make money as a MD, why is it not OK for healthcare providers?

What do you mean by "OK"? You are asking nebulus questions.

It doesn't matter how much you exercise, you're not going to be able to burn off a steady diet of pizza, brownies & beer.

Really! Are they calories in pizza, brownies and beer resistant to the First Law of Thermodyanamics.

The health of the US would rapidly increase if health care costs were based on actuarial costs.

Please explain what you think "actuarial costs" means.

Mxracer

If no insurance companies existed, we'd all be left individually negotiating with the various flavors of MDs depending on what ailed us.

So you see medical insurance as a payment consolidation service?

mxracer652,

Most people like being able to choose their health care provider, that is, they don't like insurance companies limiting their choices. I suppose there are a few people (I guess including you) that don't want to choose. That "feature" could be provided to you at little or no cost without needing to add the high costs of supporting the insurance companies to the cost of health care.

1st... Why not apply a scientific worldview to this question and others? Analyze the widely varying systems around the world for quality of care, cost, and percentage of people covered? Then accept the conclusions of the worldwide experiment that has been going on for years. Why have a separate method for developing our political opinions when empiricism is the most proven way to solve problems?

2nd...Why are churches getting involved in this? For the same reasons they sell childcare services, media, bingo cards, and social events. They are conglomerate businesses that get most of their power not from theology but from their product offerings. With John McCain wanting to change health insurance from something you get at work into something you buy on your own, you can expect to see denominational PPO's near you soon. Connect the dots and follow the money.

When religion does to the insurance industry what they did to the day care industry, there will be few options for atheists.

What,
Come on now! I'm 27, have the metabolism of a speed freak & ride (bicycle) about 7,000 miles a year, race, and there is absolutely no way I can eat shit food like for more than two days & not gain weight. Why do you think the average schlub, whose idea of exercise is a walk around the block, can?

Medical insurance provides a service whether you believe it or not. I pay them to reduce my personal risk/cost by averaging it out over large numbers of people, and doing all the up front work of setting prices for services & gathering networks of MDs for me to choose from.

They function much the same way a broker does.

rna,
If you were Joe off the street and tried to negotiate your own health care policy with a handful of doctors, you would be severely limiting your choices, because there's just not enough feasible time in one's life to do the necessary bid proposals, evaluate them, make a decision, write a contract, negotiate terms, blah blah.

This is what an ins co does for you, for a fee.

what,
Actuarial cost = Cost of future benefits to be paid out (in terms of health care needed) based on current data (various health indicators like BP, % body fat, resting heart rate, smoke, drink, sports played, career, personal behavior, et cetera).

Workaholic chain smoking drunks who like to skydive would pay much more for the same health insurance as straight edge vegan soccer moms that jog. Just like life ins.

mxracer652,

No. That is what the insurance companies do for themselves.

MxRacer

Come on now! I'm 27, have the metabolism of a speed freak & ride (bicycle) about 7,000 miles a year, race, and there is absolutely no way I can eat shit food like for more than two days & not gain weight.

I was a Cat 2 road racer in my early thirties (came to the sport because of a running injury) training 600 miles per week (on season) and I was easily consuming about 5000 cals/day. So what! You still have not explained to me how "shit food" violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Why do you think the average schlub, whose idea of exercise is a walk around the block, can?

Can what? Violate the First Law of Thermodynamics? You aren't making any sense.

Medical insurance provides a service whether you believe it or not.

Believe? I never touch the stuff. Did somebody here argue that medical insurers don't provide a service?

I pay them to reduce my personal risk/cost by averaging it out over large numbers of people, and doing all the up front work of setting prices for services & gathering networks of MDs for me to choose from.

With socialized insurance you would be paying less than you presently do and getting better outcome. Most folks will choose the obvious choice eventually. But insurance costs may need to get higher to convince a few slow learners. And they will.

Mxracer

OK now that you gave me your definition of "actuarial cost" I will respond to this:

The health of the US would rapidly increase if health care costs were based on actuarial costs.

No, the "health of the US" would not increase. Exactly the opposite would happen and you would be paying a lot more for insurance. Let's see if you can deduce why this would likely occur.

What, I respectfully agree and disagree with you. First, I think we're all aware that food has calories; however, it's what you get with the calories that matters as well. With an apple you get nutrients with your calories. With Cheeze-nips you get chemicals, MSG, TFAs, HFCS, blah, blah (exactly what ARE those preservatives?). These are health destroying concotions that slide past the corrupt FDA with truckloads of cash. Also, low fat is not the answer, it's the type of fat that counts. Cholestrol causing heart attacks is a myth. I won't go into details unless there's a request.

Anyway-YES YES YES exercise is way important but, like mxracer said, if you're going to stuff your face with a bigfoot pizza, you better be prepared to run 3 to 5 hours (I burn approx 600 calories with 1 hour of running). I suspect most Americans are not willing to run 3-5 hours, so they pack the calories on, get sick, go on disability and voila! Here we are.

And then they stop at Micky Deez on their way home from the MD's office. Argh!!!

Cry4turtles

First, I think we're all aware that food has calories; however, it's what you get with the calories that matters as well.

Americans are not under-nourished. They are over nourished. This is true with respect to total caloric intake and total nutrient intake. Normal Americans only very rarely have dietary deficiencies. If you are not an alcoholic and you do not have a malabsorption disease then you are extremely unlikely to have any dietary deficiencies. So "what you get with those calories" is of little consequence unless, as I have stated above, you are eating a diet high in fat or cholesterol.

If you "stuff your face" with ANY food you had better be prepared "to run 3 to 5 hours".

and by all means don't drink. The harm you do to your brain outweighs any mild vascular benefits alcohol consumption may impart.

C4T

Wow! I didn't catch this one earlier.

Cholestrol causing heart attacks is a myth.

I don't know what you mean by "causing" but cholesterol level (particularly LDL) is a significant risk factor for vascular disease. When it comes to diet it is the most significant risk factor known with respect to vascular disease in normals.

Also as I mentioned above one should avoid transfat as well but the work done on this risk is not as mature as that of cholesterol risk.

But by all means

A little bit of anecdotal info. My mother and father, both in their mid seventies, have had recent carotid angiograms. Both should significant atherosclerosis and occlusion near the carotid bifurcation. This should be contrasted with my vegetarian (cholesterol comes from animal fat) brother who as well has had a recent carotid angiogram and has carotids that are clean as a whistle.

I recently have modified my diet because of this finding and dropped my total cholesterol from 210 to 150 with dietary and behavioral modifications that were much easier to implement than I had anticipated. Not everyone is so lucky - not everyone can lower their cholesterol to this degree through diet changes.

What, I'm no "expert", but I've been studying nutrition for 25 years. Cholestrol doesn't cause heart attacks. Cholestrol is a healing agent. It will bind to injuries in the arteries, trying to "patch them up". The state of typical American arteries is not good, with clorine gasses in the shower, TFAs, homogenized dairy, these are things that damage arteries--not cholestrol (the blockage is secondary to arterial repair). The real culprit in heart disease is(and this will come out as soon as the statin makers lose their hold on medicial knowlege)...drumroll please....inflammation!

Of course too much of anything is not good. Too much iron, protien, vitamin E etc. is not good. But everybody has cholestrol. And chances are if your cholestrol is 240, it probably was that # when your were 16. But hey! Here's a prescription anyway. $$$

I applaud you for your diteary changes, as anyone can do it if they put in the effort. There's little need for statins (they are showing to be ineffective anyway), and they should be a last resort, except that they are a cash cow for pharma.

Remember, "First do no harm".

Sorry I spelled cholesterol wrong, no tea yet.

“Providing access to affordable, quality health insurance isn’t just a ‘public policy’ question, it’s a moral question,” said Pastor Bill Devlin, the leader of the statewide faith coalition. “Every faith believes that it is critical to care for our physical being as well as spiritual need. Without access to care, too many people are unable to do that – and that is morally wrong.”

I, too, agree that getting churches involved in this sort of thing is not a good idea.

Do you think that these religious organizations would consider birth control to be an acceptable health care option for females? Abortion (if considered medically necessary to save the life of the gestating female)? What about churches trying to make people profess their faith in order to be treated as a basic requirement for getting health care?

I only ask because, right now, even without institutionalized religious meddling in health care issues, we are already seeing doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals engagin in these practices. Imagine what would happen if they were legally allowed to do so...

cry4turtles

We have been talking about diet and its role in Americans health. Cholesterol blood level is the leading dietary risk contributor to vascular disease. This is backed up by 50+ years of research starting most significantly with The Frammingham Heart Study. Inflammation (mediated by C reactive protein) is a component of the atherosclerotic process as well as ANY inflammatory process.