I was browsing CNN.com the other day--a horribly many of my stories start this way ;-; --and the breaking news banner flashed across the screen. I gasped, and immediately clicked the link! Aghast, what could be so awful that it elicits such publicity from a top American news source? I furiously waited to load and read the headline with bated breath. . .
"Michael Jackson's last doctor's office searched."
Really, CNN? Really? I hate newsertainment. Or whatever that clever punny combination of words was. . .I can't remember it. Oh, woe is me.
Anyway! You'll note the decimal place in the title, since John has since started posting with different numbers! Woo! Also, I hope to see many of you at Toni's this weekend--far as I can tell, it'll be a great time! Good to get the ole' group back together. Maybe poke some fun at DW or something. Y'know. Like ole' times. Who's bringing the sock puppets?
Onward!
TOPIC 1. This blog! It seems like a cop-out, I know, but it's late and I have to be up in four hours. Plus, it's relevant. So, shaddup you.
First of all: upcoming changes! Not many, actually. Though I hope to have more polls, and have a shorter turn-around in that regard. A new one for artist of the week will be going up shortly, but come Monday, there'll be a two-three day turn around, max. So if you have any ideas, feel free to let me know. I have a few in mind, but, y'know. I was never terribly creative. E-mail them to me (cmhannifin@vcu.edu) or IM or something! It'll be tons of fun.
Other than that. . .I don't have anything. There is the ability to search the blog now; I've tried it for functionality, so it does work, though it's not the most sophisticated search engine. But if there's anything, at all, you guys would like me to do with this blog, just let me know! I'm open to anything, and look forward to shooting down your ideas! =P
TOPIC 2: college and role reversal! Ok, that last part isn't really a part of it, but I think you'll get what I mean shortly.
Firstly, it's weird that one year of college could change so much. I mean, during the school year, we wait and wait for classes to be over, but, at least with me, not college itself. I mean, in high school, I couldn't wait to get out of Chancellor, but now, I'd be happy to chill at VCU, y'know? Now I'm yearning to get back to the social structure and out of this town, back where I know how things go. How they work. That's a change.
But, how's this for role reversal, of sorts: in college, I'd stay up until all hours--naturally--and sleep in as much as I could. And now, in the summer, I'm up at five every weekday, and by eleven, I'm ready for bed (I've over two hours past! ;-;). And, what's more: I lost weight at school. Freshmen 15? Nah. It wasn't much that I lost, because it fluctuated all year, but it was a net loss. And now, over summer, all that's gone to hell. So, I mean. Irony? Yes? Sort of?
Any of you guys getting the same feeling? At least about the preferring the college life to life in the 'burg? And why were we ever nervous? Ha.
TOPIC 3. Ok, you guys know where this one is going: National Healthcare! I know I said I'd do Sotomayor, but hold your horses. I'll take care of that when she's confirmed.
There is some good news on the national healthcare bill--Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, said there wouldn't be a Senate vote before the August recess. Some senators are insisting that they push the recess until they pass the bill, otherwise it'll be bad PR, but I think too many people have significant concerns concerning the over 1,000 page document to listen much to him. And I, for one, am glad. This bill is awful and dangerous.
Obama's quite obviously leaning heavily on the bill to get it pushed through, especially after the news conference last night (I thought it was amusing how everyone focused on the 'police' comment [which was dumb on Obama's part]; Obama became his own worst enemy there). I'd encourage all of you to go check out the good article factcheck.org has on it; a lot of the numbers he quoted doesn't quite add up. That could be a serious problem.
I really hope this bill doesn't pass--and as it is, I don't foresee any of them passing. Obama's getting criticized on a few things--the plan, for one, and his execution of it. A lot of people thinks he should've pushed it through earlier, when he has more political capital, as it were; the more he leans on this bill as his driving topic, the greater chance, I think, the Republicans have of beginning to yank the rug out from under his feet. It's an extremely important political juncture; certainly moreso than Sotomayor.
Now, I'm not saying I'm against health care reform. The polls largely show that Americans support it (though they're all leading themselves--who says no to "would you like cheaper healthcare?"). The issue isn't, really, the end--we know what we want--it's about how to get there. I'm of the opinion that Obama's plan will do exactly the opposite. It'll give us the end result of more coverage (though the uninsured will still add up to 25-some million by 2018), but at a much higher cost (at least $2 trillion more in deficits). Obama says he has 2/3rds of the relatively conservative $1T cost accounted for, but none of those funds are actually ready to be channeled to this initiative. More bills would have to be pushed through, and there's no guarantee they would, with the nature of the constituent-oriented reps. Also, his statement about Iraq doesn't hold true; depending on how soon our troops leave, it's possible that the cost of the Iraq conflict could be less than $1T (it's somewhere at about $660B right now). And executive estimates always fall short (how much did Bush say Iraq would cost? 50B?).
And, to be honest, I'm not sure what regulatory laws need to be passed to control the insurance companies--I'm actually fine with not having any passed, but I can understand the passion behind doing so. I mean, Obama's law has some regulations in it (in the bill, they can't deny you for a pre-existing condition. . .just charge you up the waloo. Talk about expensive insurance), but I don't like everything else in it, plus half of those regulations are crap. So, the answer? Easy--Wal-Mart! I know they won't fix everything, and don't expect them to, but, I guess it was a few years ago now, they joined the prescription pill business. For a lot of prescriptions, they drastically dropped prices, relying on volume--$4 for 30 days, $10 for 90. . .and there's one more for 180. I don't remember it. This program of their's has forced more common pharmacies to cut their prices--the power of competition. And now, I'm fairly certain you could not convince me that by 2020, Wal-Mart will have a program in place in which they'll pay (or reimburse) people for med school, then have them run clinics in the front of the store. It won't take care of emergencies, but check-ups will be easy. You'll come in, check in, take a shopping cart and shop, then they'll call you when there's five minutes until your appointment. You'll drop your cart off where it'll be watched, go to your appointment, pick up your cart, check out, and you're on your way! No more wasting your time reading outdated magazines. . .it's genius! I can completely see Wal-Mart adapting something like this within the next 10 years, at least within some stores (lot of infrastructure to change). And you know what? That would drastically drive down cost--I couldn't see them charging more than a flat rate of $30, $35 per visit. Bam. Just like that. You don't have to be insured; and if you want to be, I bet Wal-Mart will be rolling that out soon too.
Things do need to be done, I agree with that. I just don't like what they're proposing.
Thoughts?!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
11 comments:
I suppose it’s the opposite for me, I’m not the most socially adept person, so I mostly associate college with work and worse living conditions than I have at home. I feel I have about as much social interaction during the summer as I did at college. (that is, if talking to my guild over ventrilo counts… it probably doesn’t) During the school year at college I would go to bed early and always wake up early, during the summer I can afford to stay up all night and sleep during the day if I want to, so my schedule varies wildly. I did get the freshman 15, too much work, not enough working out, I’ve been getting back into shape recently, but I’ve really put it off for too long, plus the food is so much better here.
The healthcare bill certainly isn’t perfect, but there are two main reasons why the Republicans (and some Democrats) oppose it: 1. Because they just oppose Obama on everything and want to gain a political victory 2. Most importantly, because the health insurance companies are paying them off (they’ve already spend $126 million lobbying politicians in the first quarter of this year)
There’s no question our system is unacceptable, and if there is going to be any change, it’ll have to be now while the Democrats have enough political capital. Most of the bankruptcies in this country (> 900,000 this year) will be caused by medical bills, and there are thousands who die because they cannot afford treatment. The question we have to ask isn’t whether this bill is perfect, but whether it is an improvement, a step in the right direction. The argument is that in the long term, a better healthcare system will save money by helping the economy, eliminating money wasted for health insurance company profits, and improving overall health with preventative care and early detection of illnesses.
There’s plenty of regulation that can be passed for insurance companies, in some countries they aren’t even allowed to make a profit. Making it so that they cannot deny people based on pre-existing conditions, regulating how much the insurance company has to pay for certain procedures, establishing guidelines for what they can charge and what they have to cover, regulating the prices drug companies can charge, and so on.
As for Wal-Mart, that could certainly help with generic prescription drugs, but that’s about all it could do, you can’t call that a plan for healthcare reform. It wouldn’t even make a difference for many drugs because the companies hold copyrights, so there’s no competition to drive down the price. Not to mention, Wal-Mart couldn’t do much more than sell medicines, or maybe give you an eye exam in the store. If you need surgery or chemo or an MRI, good luck finding it in aisle 5. Wal-Mart could provide some basic checkups, perhaps if someone came in with a cold they could tell you what the problem is, but whatever basic services Wal-Mart could provide are already pretty cheap at other clinics, and it wouldn’t result in a significant savings, since you’d still have to rely on a hospital for anything remotely serious.
john, since you mentioned ventrillo i thought i'd recommend this song to you.... you may have already heard it.
It's Swedish or Finish or something techno, but theres a translation
I feel you on the college thing...I really can't wait to get back.
I really don't know what we were all so nervous about, but i realized its just a part of life. However i gained weight...i mean a lot of weight in college. However I lost weight in germany! Only a month and a half in country and i managed to drink beer almost every day, yet still lose about 15 pounds! I really really reallllllyyyy can't wait to get back to the social scene of school!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzWIFX8M-Y
forgot the link
Yeah I've heard it, I love Basshunter. :) I've never played DotA though, don't have any of the Warcraft games.
I can't wait to go back to school either. New place, new people, I think next year is going to be good! I don't really like being home much, I never take enough initiative to hang out with many people, so going back to school will be a great change in social scene for me. I didn't gain the freshman 15 either, I actually lost about 15 pounds. Like I needed to. It helped a little that the food at UVA wasn't so good, and I had to walk pretty far everyday. I expect to gain a little weight at Tech next year, better food and a slightly smaller campus, woooo! I'm excited.
And as for the healthcare bill, I didn't watch the press conference Obama had, and I don't really know the details of the bill that well, but I'm all for reform, so many people are uninsured and rates are so high for some. I agree with John, even though the bill is imperfect (as any bill or law is bound to be), its a step in the right direction.
Well, defeating the health care bill would be huge, politically, and the insurance companies do pay big bucks, but I think it's folly to say that those are the main two reasons they are willing to vote no. There is realistically no American that doesn't want to see a cheaper, better healthcare system. There really isn't. Nobody questions that our healthcare system needs a major rehaul--Republicans included. It's a method of how to do it. I'm not out to see Obama fail, and I don't get paid to form my opinions--but I sincerely think this is a wrong step in the wrong direction. Especially in the way it's paid for. The national debt is up over eleven and a half trillion, and this figures to add another trillion on that. Obama's said that he has 2/3rds of the funds covered--but, he doesn't. He has targeted areas where they could be cut and transferred, but it will require further legislation. . .that's he's going to wait until after the healthcare bill to try and secure. And people don't vote to take money away from themselves. The other third? That's well over $300M--based on friendly government estimates. What is he going to do, hold a bake sale? The money isn't there. We can't keep loaning from the Chinese, as he seems so wont to do; the only reason they're accepting it now is because if they deny it, they go bankrupt. Now you may be arguing that, well, at least more people will be covered--and to an extent, that's true. But there are still conservative estimates that 25M will be uncovered by 2018. Not to mention the far-reaching effects this could have on various other sectors. Who's going to strive for medical school when they know that coming out of it, they're a government employee? I know pre-med kids that are, right now, seriously rethinking their major. That leads to lower standards, worse education, and worse doctors. Not to mention the economy--our economy can't keep observing all this debt. Most of it is going to China/Asia, as is most of our consumeristly spent dollars; it's a matter of time until it fails. And it's not the failures of capitalism. It's the exact opposite; it's the high corporate taxes that doesn't make it feasible to be based in the US. It's the power the unions have that let a high school graduate earn $30/hr. . .with full benefits. It's the minimum wage that is, at this very business, driving up the prices of every single thing we buy. And what does that do? It drives up the cost of living. And what does that do? It inspires another minimum wage hike! It's a matter of time, with this administration and Congress, that this economy climbs and climbs and crashes. And everybody will blame the pitfalls of capitalism, when it is the socialist measures introduced that will have done it in.
There's an often quoted number of 47M that lack insurance. How many of them are dying of a serious disease? I'm not saying they're all young and healthy, but they're not all cancer patients either. That's where the Wal-Mart factor comes in. A check-up is what begins any medical procedure, any diagnosis, and if they can do it for a lot cheaper--and you know they can--why not let them? Some jobs--many--require yearly physicals and things of the sort--Wal-Mart could provide them very cheaply, especially for those without ensurance. No surgeries, or MRIs, like I said, but good, basic small stuff. No, they can't always sell the name brands, but there are generics that are just as good. And they have the power and clout to force down prices. . .why argue? It's a damn good deal.
And I think it’s naivety to think those aren’t the main reasons, you might believe what the politicians are saying, but they don’t. The Republicans and many Democrats sometimes say that we need an overhaul (they also like to say that ours is the best system in the world and shouldn’t be tampered with) but they’ve made no attempts to change it, if they really wanted to change our system, they would have. If they opposed it because of the spending, then they wouldn’t have voted for two wars or any of the Wall Street bailouts… but those things all helped their corporate sponsors, and now the insurance companies want to make sure healthcare reform doesn’t pass. The Republicans don’t even have a plan for healthcare reform; they’re getting paid so they’re perfectly happy with what we have now.
To pay for it, I think the legislation getting the 2/3 of the money will get passed more easily once we’ve already committed to funding the new healthcare plan. If the law already says we have to pay for it, there’s more incentive to find a way to pay for it. If there’s still more to be paid, they can just pass some new taxes.
Plenty of people will still strive for medical school if the government employs doctors, (which isn’t what this bill would do) even the American Medical Association has endorsed Obama’s plan. Also, the main reason why companies go to places like China is because they can hire workers for about 10 cents an hour, and I for one don’t want the US to be like China in that respect. Besides, the US is much more capitalistic and business-friendly than Europe, and they seem to be doing ok.
The entire “Wal-Mart factor” is a hypothetical, that maybe Wal-Mart will change their entire business to provide cheap healthcare sometime in the next 10 to 20 years, and that just isn’t going to happen. However, on a similar issue, I would support eliminating or shortening the duration of drug patents, to get more generic drugs out there, I’d also support more government funding for medical research, to make up for the lost profits. I’d be interested in your views on that idea. (I know what Ayn Rand thinks about patents in general, but I do find it odd that she would support such a socialistic government regulation when she thought the economy shouldn’t be regulated at all. Shouldn’t Rand ask that, if one company can make something better and cheaper, why should the government prevent them from doing so just because someone else has a patent?) Anyway, with government funding, scientists could focus on searching for cures for deadly diseases, even if it is less likely to make a profit, rather than stuff like treating “restless leg syndrome” or drugs like Viagra that are advertised all the time and can make big profits, but don’t lengthen (no pun intended) anyone’s life. It’s also worth noting that drug companies spend about twice as much on advertisements as they do on research.
I'm so tempted to just reply "Eh." Just to see your reactions. =P
And well, I'm not naive enough to say that those have no effects, but I'm not cynical enough to say that those are the main reasons. I think, especially with something of this magnitude, that there are some people in Congress that are truly against it based on principle. Then again, the Blue Dog Dems just sold out for a bone to be tossed their ways. So.
Well, that's always for the soundbites. By the WHO, we are #1 for responsiveness--it's just because we're so expensive that we get dragged won. We, far and away, have the best care, and I think the point-in-matter would be how can we maintain that while lowering costs. It won't be easy, and I don't think the answer is a public option. But I digress. I think it's dangerous to throw out a blanket statement like "If they wanted to change it, they would have." Because you know politics come into play. Firstly, it's all a matter of what the reform is, how it's carried out. Then a lot of it is the fact that it's never bipartisan. That's the greatest threat to this bill--the Dems wrote it up and then took it to the Repubs saying, what do we need to fix to get your votes? That's not bipartisanship; that's just fishing for votes. And if it passes on that, well, then, I don't think there's any chance we'll have a document that's in the best interest of the entire nation.
And, John, some of them did vote against the bailout, and at the beginning of the Iraqi war, the White House estimated cost was $50B; not a little money, but it was certainly difficult to foresee over $600B being spent there. I think it folly to say that those against the healthcare bill because of cost are necessarily hypocrites; the war has to do with national security, and the bailout, much as I hate it, was a one-time payment; not another system like Medicare/aid and Social Security that just suck funds with no real pay off.
I'm not nearly as confident. Senators and Reps fight tooth and nail for those pork barrel projects, to get that funding to their constituents. And I don't think any of them will give that up easily. The only real way I see to raise the money is to raise taxes on the middle class (poor are exempt, typically, and the rich evade). The Wall Street Journal did a piece that showed that the White House, to cover this plan, would have to tax everybody that made over $750,000 100% of their income to cover the costs (Might have the exact number wrong. . ). Obviously, he won't do that. . .but where does he think this money is coming from? And the way the bill puts burden on the employers, before this goes into effect, I promise you there will be a hike in lay offs and unemployment. There's a provision in the bill that says the companies can't lower salaries to pay their part, so what'll they do? Fire people. It's easier.
If the bill plans to set up a public option, the government will have to employ doctors. But, regardless, med school students are willing to go into massive debt (a few hundred thousand) based on the idea that they will be able to earn that back. If suddenly those wages and salaries are driven down, how is med school even remotely viable or wanted? No thanks, I'll go just earn a bachelor's in something else and work in an office. Hell of a lot easier and cheaper with all the same benefits. As for Europe. . .I don't like them, mostly, either. Like the fact that they're stepping all over their citizens' toes. Their citizens are more to-be-criminals than, well, citizens.
CONTINUING. . .
Yes, hypothetical, but it's pretty easy to see in any crystal ball. The affects they've had on nearly every market they've entered has been astounding, and they already have their foot in the door with healthcare. It wouldn't be hard for them to hire a general practitioner or two per store.
And I would argue that Rand would argue the exact opposite of what you are. Let's say, for the sake of example, that I wrote a great novel (it's a hypothetical). A best seller that I'm printing myself. I print it one copy at a time on my printer at home. . .you earn a whole printing warehouse to print and bind books. You can do it for MUCH cheaper than me. However, there is one slight problem: the book is my intellectual property, and you have no right to access it in any way (other than buying it). You have no right to take my work and profit off it unless I give you permission to. It's essentially the same with medicine. . .I think she'd argue that whomever has the patent justly keeps the patent, no matter what.
But, how about this, in terms of drugs--a law banning advertisements on prescription drugs? Though I'm a huge laissez-fairest, I think I could get on board with this, if you want to do something about the payment discrepancy. It makes sense to me--the only people you need to know about it are the doctors. It doesn't matter if the patients think they should take Zoloft or Prozac or whatever--the doctor writes the prescriptions. So all these advertisements for prescription drugs--including the likes of Viagra and Cialis and yada yada--ban them! Only in professional periodicals.
Well, I guess you can call me cynical. I’m sure there are some who are ideologically opposed to public healthcare (and I would count Michelle Bachman among those) but I’m sure the main policy shapers are most heavily influenced by the money. As you pointed out, the blue dog Democrats are definitely not voting based on their political ideology.
Dangerous or not, my blanket statement is correct. The Republicans had control of the executive and legislative branches for years after George W. Bush was elected, and they had no trouble pushing through most of what they wanted, if they proposed some real healthcare/insurance reform, it would have passed too. You know the Democrats would have gladly jumped on board if the Republicans proposed some healthcare reform. The problem is, that’s not what the Republicans wanted, even now it’s useless to let the Republican leadership help write the bill, because they haven’t proposed anything to add to the bill, they just want to take things out. (ok, that’s not entirely true, they have proposed some things, like the insurance co-ops, but that would at best only slightly drive down insurance premiums and they’re still for-profit so they’ll have all the same problems the current insurance companies do) The Democrats’ bill was already bi-partisan before it even went to committee; the real liberal position is to be for a single payer system or some other form of universal, government healthcare, the “public option” is a compromise with the conservatives who want to keep the private insurance companies. But knowing how weak the Democrats are, they’ll give up far more than their fair share, if a compromise should be 50/50, the Democrats will compromise 10/90 in the Republicans’ favor. The Republicans are going to vote against the bill no matter how watered-down it is, so there’s no ideological reason why the Democrats should even attempt to include them in the writing process. I sometimes get annoyed when people say that the two parties are really the same thing and neither are really working for the people and they’re both corporate slaves and so on, because it’s such a simplistic and reactionary response… but it’s not far from the truth.
(If you think Medicare/aid and Social Security have no real payoff, I think you’re in a very small minority of Americans.)
The US definitely doesn’t have the best healthcare in the world, according to every UN or international study, the US is ranked way below most other industrialized countries. What we do well is the very high tech, very expensive procedures, and it’s very good that we do but that’s because we’re a very rich country and we spend a lot of money on it. There’s no reason why we would fall behind in that respect if we started providing public health insurance, we’ll still have good technology and we’ll still spend lots of money developing it.
I don’t know about that number regarding the taxes, but since it’s from the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, I’ll just assume it’s bullshit.
How are Europe’s citizens “to-be-criminals?” (they do have less people actually in jail than the US)
And I agree on the ban on prescription drug advertisements. A bipartisan solution, huzzah!
Yes, my responses to your last few points got very short, but I was getting lazy and I’ve got a prior engagement tonight involving a dungeon, a demon or two, possibly some evil wizards, and a bunch of overweight nerds. (really, I exaggerate the extent to which I don’t have a life, I’m just enjoying the last few weeks of summer)
John out.
Post a Comment