Phi for All

Quick answer, we start motivating everybody who would be affected by national healthcare to get involved in their government and become a bigger voice. Votes will beat $ with the politicians. You can't stay in office on money alone when the voters are aware.

If the costs get ignored or people view a change in healthcare as being free, it may be that many people (me included) are assuming that the money spent on insurance now would simply be paid to the government in the form of taxes. I'm led to believe HR 676 assumes that the cost of national healthcare with everyone participating will be lower than what we pay for medical insurance and out-of-pocket costs now. In that way, I suppose you could say it'll be free as far as their wallets are concerned. But I don't know anyone who thinks that insurance money will go back into their pockets. Maybe a portion but not all.

You never gave us much choice.

I think the government is being used by many who have the financial and political power to do so, and in some cases government is being abused. I don't see the government as a mega-corp entity, but more as a tool that can be used by anyone. The tool can be useful or it can be abused by those who would use it against many to help a few. Again, I would like to know if other countries with national healthcare view it as thwarting the system and creating a mega-corp. I think if people are going to get off their asses in this country to motivate their representatives to change this flawed system, we'd better do it right the first time. Halfway measures at this juncture will insure that we're stuck halfway for a long time. The bulk of Americans don't challenge the system with any regularity. The kind of competition you get when representatives represent only those with money. I'm sure it's probably like the worst of the pyramid scams. You'll never get a decent price for something when so many people who helped put it in place need to be paid their cut. One of the few times anyone will pass the buck when the buck's in cash. I agree that the concept of insurance is what needs to be broken. It's like we're betting that something bad is going to happen to us and the insurance company is betting it won't.

I'd check out a patent attorney. Pay for an hour of his time and he'll go over your options. The attorney may also know of some trustworthy investors or consultants. I've heard of people who sold the foreign rights to a patent to use as seed money to develop their ideas in the US. This would be a sweet deal and you'll have someone else to fight the Chinese. One thing I do know, don't go for a design patent. They're easy to get around because designs can be altered slightly without affecting efficiency. Go for a utility patent. You'll need a bunch of points that detail why your device is unique in the marketplace (the whole is taken into consideration; it's not just that your sprinkler traverses the lawn by water pressure, and not just that it hovers over the lawn without leaving unsightly tracks, and not just that it can be filled with green dye to make the lawn look healthier. It's the fact that it's the only product out there that does *all* those things that makes it worthy of a utility patent).

Classic crackpot. But you're assuming your ideas are already fact. That's not how science works. I think it's more like nobody agrees with you, for reasons they've posted in other threads and even other forums. You're the one closing his mind. More crackpot classics. It *must* be everybody else's lack of education. Everybody else is wondering the same thing, why do you waste your time? You just keep repeating the same junk and don't listen when someone makes a valid criticism. Repetition doesn't make your ideas any less wrong. Repetition makes your ideas seem shallow and ill-formed. Like they'll fall down if you don't say them exactly the same way each time.

Come on, I didn't. Speaking for others would have looked like this: "Nobody thinks healthcare has no cost". I confined my remarks to my personal observations. I'd like to see some examples of the first half of your first sentence. As I said, I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost. I agree that programs like this one are often couched in terms of the wealthy paying more while the opposite is usually true. Sometimes I think we need to devise a test for those who vote that ranks their ability to untangle the spin that's been engineered into these resolutions.

Well duh. I'm sorry, but duh. I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost. The point here is where the money collected goes, to a government program that works in many other countries or to a company who makes more money by denying you coverage. HMOs and health insurance companies are allowed to claim the assets they accrue to cover themselves as operating expenditures instead of profit, to a certain amount. The amounts vary by state but here are the Texas laws. Please note: While sheltering these monies is vital to maintaining their businesses, this often makes the insurance company's P&L statements look like they're losing money. I recall a memo from one of the big boys in the HMO field that found it's way to the media. In it an executive was bemoaning the fact that it was very hard finding a company to manage the $950M cash portfolio they suddenly found themselves with. I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that the only people who get medical insurance are those who need and use it? I think that's wrong. And in Colorado, you're *required* to have auto insurance but you don't have to prove it until you're involved in an accident or get pulled over. Many uninsured motorists just claim to have insurance so they can get their license plates. What do you mean by "the few that pay into the health system"? The Census Bureau released in 2005 that only 16% of Americans are uninsured, so the vast majority pay into the health system. Perhaps people are requiring more from their doctors because they only visit in an emergency, or when they simply can afford no other means than to use their insurance, risking a rate increase. Perhaps malpractice would go down if people saw their doctors more regularly, giving the doctor more information for diagnosis and opportunities for preventative measures. Remove the fear of insurance hassles and this objection might go away. I would like to hear how countries with national healthcare services handle things like malpractice. Anyone from one of these countries have any input on professional liability for doctors? Wouldn't it be nice if the pharms would open their R&D records to congressional investigators or other independent auditors so we could see if any of this is really true? We do know that much of what they claim as costs are already tax deductible as part of doing business. Many pharms declare it costs them $500M in R&D for every drug they come up with, but using information we can actually verify we see the cost is more like $60-70M for the average drug brought to market. The pharms also forget to remind us that over half the R&D money for the most popular drugs comes from taxpayer funding. If the pharms aren't making very much profit, as you claim, then why has Fortune magazine named them the top earning industry for return on revenues every year since 1985? If pharmaceutical R&D is so risky, why are their earnings three times on average what the other industries are in the Fortune 500? Don't forget that about four out of five new drugs are copying R&D done on other drugs. Only 20% of new drugs are considered innovative and would require more outlay. I disagree here. Putting the government in charge does not automatically insure failure. I liked it when the government ran our utilities; I pay LOTS MORE now that my energy is privatized. I've never seen a single program the government gave up to private industry that worked out better for us. They aren't the best providers for most things, but I think this is something they could do well. Hopefully we'll eventually drop the idea of "insurance" and just pay for our healthcare through taxes like other countries. Intervention urged by lobbyists who are more active in the lives of the politicians than the public they represent. It's our fault for not being loud enough long enough. This is so obviously one of those areas where the might of the mega-corp is able to thwart the intent of the system. Paying lobbyists and spinning stories to the public to help pass laws that favor your market is not supposed to be part of the process. The blame is with us for allowing the corporations to scam the system but this is not the way corporations should be run either. I don't see this bill as an investment in further corruption, but I do agree that it's not my best choice for what I'm fighting for. I would much rather have the whole idea of insurance done away with. You shouldn't have to worry about whether your coverage can disappear on a technicality. You shouldn't have to neglect your health because you're saving your insurance for serious freaking medical problems. I want to be realistic though. I know change will probably come a bit at a time. Still, a big part of me would love to see Americans stand up to their government and demand change. The government should be much more afraid of us than they are.

But the system we have *now* is corrupt. Where is the competition when the insurance companies are networked? Why fear government intervention? How else are common people like me going to work to correct something we feel is wrong? Right now, part of what we pay the insurance companies for is to employ people who look for reasons to deny us the coverage we are banking on having when we get sick. With HR 676 there's nothing for a government entity to deny. The sick get medical attention. Period. The system can always be corrupted if we're not vigilant but at least it makes sense not to empower an industry who uses our own money to get out of doing what we pay them for. That's why I like this bill (so far as I've skimmed it). It's going to allow insurance companies to compete, but it's going to set a standard that won't allow for the ludicrous profits at the expense of good health that happen now. And no more of this denial of claim crap. Allow doctors to heal the sick and injured. That's what I really hope to avoid. It's almost a forgone conclusion without some major league stumping.

Oooh, it could have been me. I get pretty emotional reading about anti-matter. I think I told everyone in that thread I loved them. I don't remember, I was *that* geeked out. My bad.

From what I've read, the insurance angle is to make the government the insurer, rather than making the government the healthcare giver (we've been conditioned to think socialized medicine is state-run and staffed). This way we pay into the system and the system pays out to the care provider. Benefits are lower costs, time saved due to lack of red tape and you can't get turned down on a technicality. I'm not sure yet how HR 676 addresses pharmaceuticals. Without the insurance companies deciding which meds are covered there will most likely be more competition which should drive prices down.

Not PAP smears, you great stonking numty! (funny, but WRONG!) Our smear campaigns are aimed at making *your* national health system seem barbaric. They claim your doctors are underqualified and undermotivated. They claim you only have a few big pieces of medical diagnostics machinery and would have us believe you make people wait months to use them and have to wheel them from office to office to handle all the requests. These campaigns tell us you have little choice because your system is run by the government and then compares healthcare in the UK & Canada to our own postal service (which is still government-run and gets lots of complaints, even though we still pay less than half a dollar to mail a first-class letter).

Then join me over here and let me know what you think.

I'm getting up a head of steam to put some support behind a national health care program. The US healthcare system has been hijacked by insurance carriers whose business is seemingly inimicable to good health care; they make more money if they neglect our health and deny our claims. The insurance companies and health manglement companies have become so wealthy and powerful they can affect legislation and the media in their favor. Lobbying for US healthcare dollars allows them to mire us even deeper into a system that is neither effective nor efficient. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to shoot down any reform, even resorting to smear campaigns against the national medical services available in most other major countries. I used to believe healthcare was a privilege rather than a right, but even the 8th amendment to the constitution grants the right of free medical care to prisoners because not to do so is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Shouldn't we treat ourselves at least as well as we treat our prisoners? I've heard too many stories of people who had all the bases covered only to find that, when they really needed the insurance they'd invested in, someone from their own insurance provider found a form that hadn't been filled out completely enough and denied their claim, forcing them into bankruptcy instead. What really moves me towards advocacy in this matter are the doctors who just want to help people but can't when it's not profitable for the insurance carriers. I'm sure SFN members from Canada, the UK, France, Germany and other countries with national health services would be shocked to know what we have to pay for healthcare in the US and how poorly served we are by the present system. Doctors often have to tell patients that tests and procedures they needed when insurance was available are no longer required when insurance runs out or claims are denied due to clerical error. Doctors get blamed for not being able to practice medicine. Has anyone researched H.R. 676? What do you think of the bill? Is it a step in the right direction? Do you think the US can have a national health insurance system who's number one goal is keeping us healthy?

The first and most graphic angle of groupthink that came to mind is lynching. There have been several works done but so many use postcards and other visuals and I'm not sure how you think your son would handle such representations.

It's the differences in our perspectives that make seemingly disparate things seem equally correct. Aggressive posturing can seem warlike but often leads to less war through intimidation. Every action will harm some as it helps others. Advocacy is pretty effective medicine for depression. I'm trying to clear my slate a bit to make room for a some stumping for HR 676, the new proposed national medical insurance bill. It's something the US needs imo and it will be an uphill battle all the way. We'll be fighting some of the very people and corporations who help make the world a fearful, unhealthy and depressing place (because that's where the money is). Should be great fun!

Jack and Betty were celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. Jack asked, "Betty, I was wondering -- have you ever cheated on me?" Betty said, "Oh Jack, why would you ask such a question now?" "Please, Betty, I really want to know." "Well, all right. Yes, 3 times." "Three? When were they?" "Well, Jack, remember when you were 35 years old and you really wanted to start the business on your own and no bank would give you a loan? Remember how one day the bank president himself came over to the house and signed the loan papers, no questions asked?" "Oh, Betty, you did that for me! I respect you even more than ever, that you would do such a thing for me! So, when was number 2?" "Well, Jack, remember when you had that last heart attack and you were needing that very tricky operation, and no surgeon would touch you? Remember how Dr. DeBakey came all the way up here, to do the surgery himself, and then you were in good shape again?" Jack was beaming. "I can't believe it! Betty, I love that you should do such a thing for me, to save my life! I couldn't have a more wonderful wife. To do such a thing, you must really love me, darling. I couldn't be more moved. When was number 3?" Betty sighed and said, "Well, Jack, remember a few years ago, when you really wanted to be president of the golf club and you were 17 votes short...?" ______________________________________________________________________ Asked why he's bruised head to toe, Kelly tells the barkeep, ''I got in a fight with Riley.'' ''Riley? He's just a wee fellow,'' the surprised barkeep said. ''He must have had something in his hand.'' ''Aye, a shovel it was," said Kelly. ''Dear Lord!" exclaimed the barkeep. "Did you have anything in your hand?'' ''Aye, Mrs. Riley's left tit.'' Kelly said reverently. ''And a shining wondrous thing it was, but a poor choice in a shovel fight.'' _______________________________________________________________________ A rabbi and a priest buy a car together and it's being stored at the priest's house. One day the rabbi goes over to use the car and he sees the priest sprinkling water on it. The rabbi asked, ''What are you doing?'' The priest responded, ''I'm blessing the car.'' So the rabbi said ''Oh yeah?! Well, since you're doing that....!'' and the rabbi takes out a hacksaw and cuts two inches off the tail pipe.

Hey, Thanks but people who join to lead us to other sites usually have an agenda which is inconsistent with our purpose. If this isn't the case you can prove it by sticking around for a discussion, now that I've removed any suspicion by disabling your link. Welcome to SFN, I hope you enjoy our site!

Don't discount the knowledge of the company's innerworkings and its products, and the process knowledge the first tech has. These are worth a lot as well. No, not on his own. Training others is NEVER a good use of a technician's time. That's why most companies have training manuals or HR staff that train new employees at a lesser billed rate than a technician. The first technician *could* wait until he's asked questions by the new tech, then clear the unofficial training program with management. That way management knows why the first tech's work is suffering; he's training the new guy.This keeps the company from suffering, the first tech's value is upheld, and the new tech gets his training from someone who knows best. In the politics of the workplace, management by objective must be given consideration. If you're not paid to train new techs, make sure management understands you're doing something outside your purview that is helping the company. It's not kissing up to make management aware of the extra duty you're taking on, especially if the work will either make you look bad, make another look good, or both.

I don't think life sucks at all, nor do people. I think there's validity in just about everything and everyone. It's our perspectives that can suck at times if we allow it. It's really easy to judge others and it's really hard to judge yourself. Remember that we always want others to view our actions in context, but we rarely grant others that consideration. We all have reasons for what we do but we rarely bother to find out what anyone else's reasons are before we pass judgment. And when we become aware of the problems, we also see those who have it better than we do. The media glorifies idiots with huge bank accounts and most advertising these days points out just how many things you lack that you really should have. We look up the ladder with envy and forget to look below us in gratitude. It's all perspective, and I choose to look at events and people as positive learning experiences, not as things that make life suck. Some people are valuable to you in minuscule but important ways. Some people are valuable because by knowing them, you'll never become them. The people who bless your life with wisdom are always valuable.

Actually this does work, but most people don't know how to use it effectively. Bullies can sense when they aren't going to get a rise out of their victims. If the victim truly is unruffled by a bully the bully *will* lose interest. Most people who try to ignore a bully do so so pointedly that the bully can tell it's just a ploy. Those are the ones who get beat up most.

Like swansont, I don't agree with this reason. In primitive societies it was normal for teens to have children. I'd venture to say *most* first-time pregnancies in those cultures happened well before the age of seventeen or eighteen (a benchmark in the US culture for maturity and consent). I think part of the reason parents are leery of their children having even protected sex is a moral one stemming from the weird dichotomy we've formed around reputations. Males who have lots of sex are considered studs, while females who do the same are sluts. No parent wants a slut for a daughter, neither do they want their sons to be involved with a slut. They also don't want a stud to turn their daughters into sluts so the whole teenage sex debate is tainted with this warped view of how healthy such sex is, based on some strange gender-specific quantity vs quality parameters. How much sex can a girl have before she's a slut? Is it more than a guy can have before becoming a stud? Is a girl a slut if she has sex only a couple of times but really really enjoys it? It's probably a remnant of some Puritanical moral judgment we can't seem to shake in the US. And it's doubly weird because parents are basically teaching their kids that contraception isn't a better choice than having the child of someone you were just experimenting with.

I think what we're seeing here is not a paradigm shift in role models, but rather the effects of the paradigm shift in culture brought about by instantaneous media like television and telephony. We have access to a greater amount of entertainment and information. Unfortunately, many of the things that stick in our minds are the absurdest and silliest of what we see and hear. Believe me, when the slackers and the doofi have had their 15 minutes of fame, they'll be back to their exciting careers as protein rotation specialists in the fast food industry. Outside of high school, the smart kids get their reward in better jobs and continued schooling. Stupid isn't rewarded, it's laughed at (sometimes people pay to laugh and stupid gets lucky). Stupid isn't valued, it earns our contempt (sometimes people enjoying venting their contempt and stupid gets more publicity). Stupid isn't excused, it's tallied, in negative points for trust and good judgment. Trust me, outside of high school things will change for stupid. It's always been this way. Every generation claims the upcoming generation has gone to hell. I think we're hearing and seeing and reading more than ever before, so we're exposed to more stupid too.

Immortality is like the Midas Touch; it sounds so good until reality shows you it's not. We always forget the law of unintended consequences.

I understand the interpretation. My point all along has been that science considers everything to be natural and knowable. If something isn't known now it isn't unknowable; it's simply not known *now*. If something isn't explainable naturally it isn't supernatural; it's just not explainable naturally *now*. Even the modern interpretation of Occam's Razor isn't used against the process by which we generate explanations, but only to the choice between two or more explanations. Doesn't the scientific process call on us not to make generalizations which presume something can never happen?