jerome scuggs' weekly "shit hits the fan" politics thread

[Summa]

They'd never do that would they?

Corporate big wigs denying claims? THATS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!! NEVER!!! I want citations to prove your sources good sir!

On another note, we as Americans are granted the right to life (only if you have the money to pay the bills), liberty (only if the government doesn't take it away from you), and the pursuit of happiness (i wasn't aware it was possible to be happy in this country).

[Epinephrine]

You should check out our rating on the Index of Freedom, we're about as high up as our rating on Healthcare quality.

Keep in mind - if you track our GDP, and then you look at the GDP in terms of public versus private spending, you'll see two trends. One is that our government is now responsible for over 58% of the GDP - meaning they own a majority of production in the country. But something that you might not consider - as the Government's share has been increasing, the private sector has been decreasing. Though we have a massive GDP, the fact is, our economy is not as robust as the GDP stats would have you believe. Case in point: in the past few months the economy has 'grown' 1.5%, yet so has the jobless rate - from 5.5 to 5.7% this month alone. How?

Thanks for proving my point, about how when you talk about 'world falling apart' you're actually just talking about the USA.

I got news for you, the USA isn't the world, and considering the USA is probably doing among the worst of the developed world right now AND has the most 'economic freedom' and the least 'socialism', maybe that's a sign that more of the so-called free market isn't always the best idea.

Here's a fun way to look at things. Before there was any regulation in the markets, before there was the Fed, before we got off the gold standard, there were boom and bust cycles every 5-10 years in the USA. By boom I mean 20% GDP increase, by bust I mean 15-20% GDP decreases. The world was much less sure, and much less secure. Sure, eventually the trend was that things slowly got better, but inbetween there were also a TON of really horrible years. The entire point of social systems is to decrease those horrible years, and I believe that they have helped alieviate a lot of those problems that the free market never came close to solving the USA's first 150 years of existance.

[Squeezer]

You should check out our rating on the Index of Freedom, we're about as high up as our rating on Healthcare quality.

Hooray! We have procedures and equipment most people can't afford. What a great thing this commercialized health care is. All we have to do is trust that they wont adjust the rates to fuck us in the ass or deny claims whenever they feel like it.

They'd never do that would they?

edit: I think one of the things you're afraid of is that socialized health care will kill competition and thus will make for more unqualified physicians. Competition is a natural human characteristic that isn't going to die because we choose not to privatize necessary human support programs. Would you intend that homeless teens pay for their stay as well? That way we could weed out all the "inadequate" ones. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that corporate control belongs anywhere near health issues. They are not going to look out for a person's best interests first unless it stands to make a profit.

[Jerome Scuggs]

my question to you is, was it ever really any better off? (in modern history)

Hell no. I don't think it's gotten better at all. Just because smart bombs can take out a target without having to kill half a city, doesn't mean we're a safer or better place.

[Summa]

Maybe, maybe not. I think the world's alot worse off than you're painting it to be, and perhaps I'm the other way. But planning for the worst case scenario is, imo, the better way to do business - you'll be prepared.

my question to you is, was it ever really any better off? (in modern history)

[Jerome Scuggs]

So the 'world falling apart' ACTUALLY means, 'problems in the USA'. Well I have news for you, the USA is one of the most capitalistic societies in the world.

You should check out our rating on the Index of Freedom, we're about as high up as our rating on Healthcare quality.

Keep in mind - if you track our GDP, and then you look at the GDP in terms of public versus private spending, you'll see two trends. One is that our government is now responsible for over 58% of the GDP - meaning they own a majority of production in the country. But something that you might not consider - as the Government's share has been increasing, the private sector has been decreasing. Though we have a massive GDP, the fact is, our economy is not as robust as the GDP stats would have you believe. Case in point: in the past few months the economy has 'grown' 1.5%, yet so has the jobless rate - from 5.5 to 5.7% this month alone. How?

You think the fear of terrorism is actually bad? The last 30 years have been some of the safest 30 years in the history of the Western world. The total amount of people who've died in conflicts in the west in 30 years and to terrorism, don't even come close to the number who died in any bad week in Vietnam.

Oh ok, so since not as many people are dying, I should not be concerned. Didn't you just accuse me of being cold and calculating? And what if you add in people dying of starvation and genocides, etc? Do they not matter when you decide whether or not the world is a better place? Or is it just war stats?

What's your point? You're just showing that a communist country is better able to prop up their country than a much more free and capitalist west. Okay, so they sell weapons to Darfur, what's your point? In the perfect capitalist society, corporations in America would also be selling weapons to Darfur because there'd be nothing against exporting weapons for genocide.

I finished that first paragraph up there with a question: How? Let me explain. Governments that have alot of power - like the US and China - can in fact create false economic booms by increasing their spending, and the boom can actually last quite awhile - this recession is the result of the bubble created by the Fed's last major actions in 1970. The problem is - spending is NOT production. China's stimulating demand because of alot of things - for instance, they subsidize their oil. It would be like if, in the USA, with gas at $4 a gallon... it would be like if the US government decided to pay $2 or $3 of each gallon of gas for us. Immediately, I would have cheaper gas and as a result overall demand would increase, stimulating the economy, etc.

The entire situation is much more complex than just the well known guarantee that fannie mae and freddie mac would be bailed out. It's also the fact that billions were spent on housing because of subprime mortgages and easy money because the regulations were very lax on lending. For instance, in Canada there is little problem with subprime mortgages because well... we generally have stricter rules on lending. In the US it was more like anything goes. Also not to mention the role of the hedge funds and their exotic investment vehicles, what made Bear Sterns go bankrupt, was a completely unregulated industry with virtually no oversight, where executives predictably did everything they could to make as much money as they could while screwing over people because they honestly could care less.

Your theory doesn't explain "why now?" If the banks were forced to have more oversight, they would refuse most of the very loans that are wiping them out right now. So why would they make the loans?

Oh, yeah, because the Fed engineered the 1990's boom by dramatically lowering interest rates and encouraging those very loans which later killed the market. If that sounds stupid, their defense was - in the 90's - "hey! we're doing great, thank you!"

BTW why is it that the rest of the world (yes, every single other country in the entire world) spends less than the USA on healthcare per capita with better results, yet the USA has the most private of all systems in the entire world? Why is this 'regulation' the cause, when say Canada has just as many if not more regulations (health canada is usually 2-3 years behind the FDA in approving stuff) but we spend 1/2 as much per capita? I honestly don't see how your argument holds ANY water. The real reason prices are higher in the USA, is precisely BECAUSE it's private. Corporations can set the price higher to make more profits, because they don't care if a large segment of the population cannot afford healthcare, as long as enough rich people CAN, so they can make profits. That's how profit curves work.

Since you can't understand it when I xplain it, I'll ask you a question and you can figure it out yourself: If corporations are setting the prices, then how come I can afford my healthcare when I don't pay for insurance? How do you explain that?

I'm not looking for a massive collapse. You are the one saying the world is falling apart. That's a pretty grand statement. You don't just make grand statements with cursory evidence. Are you now backtracking and saying 'well the world isn't so much falling apart, as there are things here and there that are not doing so well in certain parts of the world, and you just wait, because eventually in another few decades we'll be falling apart!'.

Maybe, maybe not. I think the world's alot worse off than you're painting it to be, and perhaps I'm the other way. But planning for the worst case scenario is, imo, the better way to do business - you'll be prepared.

[Epinephrine]

I believe that the "godfather of socialized health care" in Canada also just wrote a report that socialized health care didn't work as well as he intended and that it is basically doomed to failure.

I will reply to the other posts later, I just got off work and want to relax for a bit though.

You mean Tommy Douglas? He died in 1986. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

[kthx]

The amazing thing is, if you would have hurt your leg like that, in Canada it would have been completely free to you, and would have also been done on the same day. Not to mention that overall, the cost of healthcare is less in Canada, so while you can say 'well it's not free because you are taxed for it', that's true, but then again the taxes are less than your deductable and the premiums that you and your employer have to pay to the insurance company every year.

I believe that the "godfather of socialized health care" in Canada also just wrote a report that socialized health care didn't work as well as he intended and that it is basically doomed to failure.

I will reply to the other posts later, I just got off work and want to relax for a bit though.

[Epinephrine]

i'm going more in the direction of "would you be able to get immediate tests on a non-emergency basis?". For some reason, the blood never drained out of my muscle (still hasn't and the numbness is annoying as fuck) so the tests were more to make sure i didn't have blood clots or major tissue damage that needed surgery. I didn't wait any time at all. I had the procedures done the day the doctor said i needed them. I thought the whole time "why am i waiting a month for this test" but i trusted their methods. I'm just wondering if I could even get those tests in canada for instance, if they're not deemed necessary or if i could get them that day if it's not an "emergency".

I guess i could've refused all those treatments, but then again, i trust my doctor not to make me take a bunch of useless tests just to earn a buck. that may too much of an assumption, but IF it turned out i that one of those procedures showed something that, if caught early, would save me time, money, and pain, than it was worth it. And thanks to insurance, those tests cost me a pretty penny, but by no means was it unaffordable.

If you could get the same standard of care in canada, i don't see where our system is superior. If you can get the same care, i'd also say that the common belief in the US is that you can't, which might explain the ire in these posts.

I worked in the ER last night, and we did plenty of urgent CT scans and X-Rays. Ultrasound technologists usually leave at around 5pm (and start at 9am) and will only come in if the doctor thinks it's absolutely necessary, but then again ultrasound tests are generally not that emergent that it has to be done right away (or else you'll just do a CT), but if you really need it, you stay overnight until 9am, and then you get your test (or you go home and come back).

If you need the tests on an emergent basis, you will get it. If you need surgery done for an emergent basis, you get it that night (we did a bunch of appendectomies, broken pelvis and even a neurosurgery last night).

If you have cancer and you need surgery for that, you will get it done in a few weeks once all the testing has been done to determine the type of cancer and fitness for surgery and type of surgery needed.

Wait times are longer for things which are considered 'elective', like people getting MRIs for like a chronic bad back, people getting ACL repairs (you can walk around fine with a torn ACL, it's just not as nice), or people booking for routine screening tests which have no urgency like the 10-yearly colonscopy. Also people with less life threatening conditions which don't need to be helped right away also wait a bit longer.


The amazing thing is, if you would have hurt your leg like that, in Canada it would have been completely free to you, and would have also been done on the same day. Not to mention that overall, the cost of healthcare is less in Canada, so while you can say 'well it's not free because you are taxed for it', that's true, but then again the taxes are less than your deductable and the premiums that you and your employer have to pay to the insurance company every year.

[DankNuggets]

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transfor...public_mn.html

Apr-May-Jun08
Hospital Name LHIN Wait time (days)
DIAGNOSTIC SCANS
Computerized Tomography (CT)
Provincial Target 28 days
Computerized Tomography (CT)
Provincial Wait Time 47
Alexandra Hospital South West NS

Disclaimer * Please note that the MRI and CT scan wait times reported as of January 1st, 2008 no longer include wait time data for specified date follow-up scans or scans being performed as suggested by a clinician after a set time period of recovery or otherwise. This is done to ensure an accurate representation of data for patients waiting for their initial scan as recommended by their clinician.


Inpatient: A patient who is admitted to a hospital or clinic for treatment that requires at least one overnight stay.

Urgent outpatient: A patient who receives treatment at a hospital that does not require an overnight stay and is unable to wait for a scheduled appointment.

Note: MRI/CT
- This data excludes inpatient and urgent outpatient reported cases.

I guess i would've fallen under urgent outpatient care for the ultrasound, but the CT scan was given to me about 2 wks ago (2 months after the injury) so i don't know if that'd qualify ofr urgent. I should note that it wasn't ordered until 2 months later - there was maybe a 3 day wait for it (weekend).

[Kolar]

i'm going more in the direction of "would you be able to get immediate tests on a non-emergency basis?". For some reason, the blood never drained out of my muscle (still hasn't and the numbness is annoying as fuck) so the tests were more to make sure i didn't have blood clots or major tissue damage that needed surgery. I didn't wait any time at all. I had the procedures done the day the doctor said i needed them. I thought the whole time "why am i waiting a month for this test" but i trusted their methods. I'm just wondering if I could even get those tests in canada for instance, if they're not deemed necessary or if i could get them that day if it's not an "emergency".

I guess i could've refused all those treatments, but then again, i trust my doctor not to make me take a bunch of useless tests just to earn a buck. that may too much of an assumption, but IF it turned out i that one of those procedures showed something that, if caught early, would save me time, money, and pain, than it was worth it. And thanks to insurance, those tests cost me a pretty penny, but by no means was it unaffordable.

If you could get the same standard of care in canada, i don't see where our system is superior. If you can get the same care, i'd also say that the common belief in the US is that you can't, which might explain the ire in these posts.

I think a potential risk of a blood clot is considered an emergency. I don't know what the wait time for that specific procedure would be but a blood clot is as far as I know life threatening. To prevent further pain, damage ect.. I think it would be deemed important enough to become a priority.

I did find this site for wait times. It is only relevant to Ontario as health care is administrated by each Canadian province, and what that means between priority cases and non-emergency cases or even the reality for people in need of such procedures I don't know. I've never needed an MRI or CT scan myself. When I did need an x-ray taken for a non-emergency I used a clinic specializing in diagnostic scans the same day which I think helps relieve the burden off of the hospitals. I know of two such places very close to where I live, one which does ultrasound close to a walkin-clinic.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_mn.html

[DankNuggets]

How long did you wait for a CT scan and ultrasound Nugget? Maybe Epi can explain better but unless you're some lunatic or mentally unstable most people would work with their doctor, not against. They are diagnostic tools completely for the benefit of the health care professional so I would think so, the difference in a public system as oppose to a private system is that my doctor makes the decision. I either consent or don't to the procedure he believes I need or he needs to diagnose my situation. It doesn't go to beyond that relationship.

i'm going more in the direction of "would you be able to get immediate tests on a non-emergency basis?". For some reason, the blood never drained out of my muscle (still hasn't and the numbness is annoying as fuck) so the tests were more to make sure i didn't have blood clots or major tissue damage that needed surgery. I didn't wait any time at all. I had the procedures done the day the doctor said i needed them. I thought the whole time "why am i waiting a month for this test" but i trusted their methods. I'm just wondering if I could even get those tests in canada for instance, if they're not deemed necessary or if i could get them that day if it's not an "emergency".

I guess i could've refused all those treatments, but then again, i trust my doctor not to make me take a bunch of useless tests just to earn a buck. that may too much of an assumption, but IF it turned out i that one of those procedures showed something that, if caught early, would save me time, money, and pain, than it was worth it. And thanks to insurance, those tests cost me a pretty penny, but by no means was it unaffordable.

If you could get the same standard of care in canada, i don't see where our system is superior. If you can get the same care, i'd also say that the common belief in the US is that you can't, which might explain the ire in these posts.

[Squeezer]

this thread makes me depressed to know how many people can afford to hurt themselves.

i cant

[Kolar]

While i don't like paying for insurance, it is a necessary evil. I injured teh fuck out of my leg in May, and since then have had bills for ER vist, X-rays, Ultrasound, and a CT scan. if i total how much i payed for it it's around 100 + 100 + 150 + 150, around 500 dollars. What did the insurance co. pay? 1000 + 500 + 750 + 2500, around $5000. If i didn't have insurance, i wouldn't have been able to afford any of those procedures. Luckily, they were all negative for what they were looking for (broken bones, blood clots). Had they shown problems, who knows how much money i would've been charged for surgery and hospital stays. I never had to wait for any of these procedures, and i could have lived with out them. So i consider myself lucky for a) not having to pay out the ass, and b) not being injured for teh long term.

With universal healthcare, I wouldn't have gotten the diagnostic services (ultrasound, CT) right away, would I? Would I have gotten them at all, since it turned out i was ok anyway? I feel that by paying for insurance, I'm paying for a higher standard of care, one that may end up saving my life or limbs. However, are these services jacked up from privatizion? Probably with the ER bill and X-rays, but I'd imagine a state-of-the-art CT machine runs the same bill for a US hospital as a UK hospital. Also, there was no "justification" needed for these procedures, a doctor ordered it. Would I have to await justification under a universal system?

How long did you wait for a CT scan and ultrasound Nugget? Maybe Epi can explain better but unless you're some lunatic or mentally unstable most people would work with their doctor, not against. They are diagnostic tools completely for the benefit of the health care professional so I would think so, the difference in a public system as oppose to a private system is that my doctor makes the decision. I either consent or don't to the procedure he believes I need or he needs to diagnose my situation. It doesn't go to beyond that relationship.

[DankNuggets]

First of all, I agree with you that they could be using the drugs at home and not at work. However, a few of the people that refused the testing had been, as far as I know, been doing lines as well as other crap before work and at their lunch breaks.

I smoke weed as well...not all that much anymore & it can be masked depending on the level they check for in a pee tests.

This did not hurt my company and in fact it is running better than ever with an increase in production and less rejected items from the manufacturing end.

This testing at my compnay was done on a random basis of 4 workers a month getting picked & sent to NovaCare for pee testing. If you had been nailed on something, the company allowed you, on your own, to clean-up and re-take w/o having a record of drug failure 60 days from the previous test results. So how do you lose in that situation? You do if your an addict and or just do not care.

We had known of many employee's drug uses over many a decade here. We know that the majority that did use drugs had been primarily weed and was done at home and not on the job.

Overall, we gave the workers the chance to keep their jobs, while allowing them to possibly clean up if they failed the test and this was not the point to these few employee's as they felt they could do what they wanted when they wanted w/o answering to anyone.

Due to the machinery and chemicals used in the Fiberglass Reinforced Polyester manufacturing field, with M.E.K., Acetone & various resins, we are considered a insurance risk for employee's that could be known hard users that are machine operators. If anyone does get in an accident here at work, they are required to be tested at the hospital as well, similar to what you had mentioned.

We are better off w/o these employee's that had been let go.

In this case, it sounds like you've got a compromise between the two extreme situations. Your company (probably because it's not a gov't org) did the right thing by allowing workers to get their shit straight. Unfortunately, that's not the case with me (unless they're keeping that quiet). If i were to get into an auto accident (not even my fault, i could be hit in a parking lot) I'm supposed to immediately call my supervisor and drive to the testing facility. Even if I'm hurt, I'll be tested within so many hours, per policy. You can mask weed in pee, but only if you've been given a # of hrs warning to dilute it, or are privy to the special "products".

I agree, workers doing lines during the day is a bad idea. I just don't know that random drug testing is the way to curb that, rather than observation and then specific testing just to "prove" it for legal reasons. And yes, I can see where the chemicals and machinary require a sober operator. Similarly, all the workers here that have CDL's get tested randomly too.

It's good to hear that it helped your company. Unfortunately, I often hear the opposite. My father works in HR for Time warner cable, and he has to drug test the workers. He constantly tells me of all the "good" workers who refused to take a test, and basically walked out of the job in tears. He says that rarely do they catch someone for anything but marijuana, and mostly people just quit rather than take the test.

It just bothers me because it assumes bad faith in employees. It absolutely doesn't prove that employees are using on company time. It assumes that they do, or just that they are unworthy people because they break "vice" laws. If you hire someone you think is a good employee, they never give you any trouble -- in fact say they bring in good business and work hard, how can you justify realsing them on a positive thc result? "Well, they must be doing drugs at work, and that's a liability." Having a shitty, sober employee is a liability too, and there's no zero-tolerance tests designed to oust them. Also a lot of this comes from an employee that initially worked for a company that didn't test, that is now forced to because of reasons like yours. Not fair to the employee or the employer.


EDIT: well i guess i shot myself in the foot here. with no private health insurance to worry about, there's no insurance company liability to drug test. Either all or none for each job.