FCC and the internet

[Samuel Thurston, III]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Steve Furbish <sfurbish at nerdshack.com> wrote:

> I could agree that EMERGENCY healthcare is a human right, but full
> medical coverage with eyecare and dental

Being able to see is critical to being able to work, especially in an
information industry, and not being able to see can cause workplace
accidents, etc.  Dental problems can quickly lead to lethal
infections.  Should we wait until the problem becomes emergency grade
before we saddle the taxpayer with the (now tripled) expense of care?
But, we could certainly argue about the level of care that should be
afforded by a single-payer plan.  Heck lots of the "socialist"
European countries have private health care for elective surgery etc..
Or for those who can afford the "best of the best" grade of care for
which the state can't or won't pick up the tab.

> is more a luxury that should be
> reserved for those who are willing to pay for it and who are legally
> within our borders. It would be less of a burden to pay their way back
> home than to guarantee free access to total healthcare. I'm not
> suggesting that we let people die in the streets, but I do feel that all
> people should be responsible in part for the consequences of their own
> choices.

I suppose they chose to be born citizens of second and third world
countries just like you chose to be born American?  Whatever happened
to the global promotion of freedom and democracy?

>
>> I don't know if you're aware of this, but Mexico actually is currently
>> experiencing an influx of sick American residents seeking medical
>> care.
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57C40C20090813
>>
>
> Government regulation is one very substantial reason why drug therapies
> are so much more expensive here than in Mexico.

Speaking of drug therapies and legal reform, if the government
regulations are such an onerous deterrent, then why is it that every
couple of years drug companies are found guilty of systemically
burying evidence that their drugs cause harmful side effects, and are
forced to pay large payouts in class-action suits?  It seems like
deliberate negligence driven by greed is an avoidable legal expense.

Oh and those studies that they cherry-pick for favorable results?
Normally conducted at public research universities which are again
funded by that evil government that is screwing the pharma industry.
Now, my taxes go to research both the efficacy and safety of these
drugs, is the data open to the public for scrutiny?

> The outrageous costs of
> malpractice insurance drive physician costs higher and higher here while
> Mexico  employs a system of arbitration to resolve malpractice claims.

Why not just include malpractice insurance reform as part of the reform package?

>>> Samuel sees it in a light most favorable to his own situation.
>>>
>>
>> I sure do.  But I know that I will be employing people in the near
>> future and would like to make sure that they have coverage that both
>> they and I can afford, that my wife will soon be covered by an
>> employer-subsidized plan, and that I have  a young child who has to
>> live with the ramifications of the system we set up now.  So "my
>> situation" is vastly more nuanced than you might think.  I've been
>> doing research on healthcare reform on and off for 15 years, after we
>> covered it as a topic in high school debate and I found it
>> fascinating.
>>
> I haven't (knowingly) been involved in a high school debate since the
> early 1970s, but it seems kind of obvious to me that if we increase the
> numbers of the covered base of insured we have to make some substantial
> cost cuts as well as increase tax revenues and everything I've seen
> suggested by congress fails in at least half of that equation.

Well, I'm standing here arguing that congress & Obama failed by taking
the Single Payer system off the table from the beginning.  Health care
spending is 16% of GDP - about 2.2 trillion dollars.  The insurance
industry reports a profit of 3.3% annually.   There's 75 billion a
year in savings right there. Then we take the expense of all the
separate insurance company bureaucracies and lump those into one
single agency along with medicare and medicaid.  Cut out the cost of
all pharmaceutical advertising and health insurance advertising and
you've probably removed 75% of the total cost of the system.

Every study shows that we are getting terrible value for dollar in our
current system.  We rank REALLY low on the WHO quality rankings
globally.


> Yet with the exception of the oldest poll listed the numbers suggest
> less than 1/2 favor such an option while nearly 2/3rds of those in the
> Kaiserpoll listed improving the economy and creating jobs as the top
> priority. I just don't see the polls you listed backing up your position
> that well even if one were to have great faith in polls.

I actually have a stack of them that support it, and can easily find
more.  These were just the three most recent available to me at the
moment.

Kaiser: Q13g) 50% favor, 44% oppose. (trending toward favor over time,
as this is a tracking poll)
The time poll merely has a plurality in favor: Q7.5) 49% favor, 46% opposed.
And yes the "oldest" one, from june of this year, shows a much clearer
margin of favorability, including specifically on the question of
"even if it causes your taxes to be higher"

As for what your faith in polls might be, I wonder how else you might
gauge public opinion?  You are aware that elections are polls, right?
Perhaps giving power to a party which has tried at every possible turn
to make health care reform a reality over the past 3 or 4 decades
might be a subtle indicator?