-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
The Right Prescription
Competing for the Sick
How could a free market health care system cover those with chronic conditions? One University of Chicago finance professor says he has the answer.
One of the most common rejoinders to those who advocate a free market health care system is: how would private enterprise cover those with chronic illnesses?
This is a valid concern. After all, under the current system, a profit-seeking insurance company does not have an incentive to take on a chronically ill patient whose medical costs will exceed any monthly premiums that the company could charge.
But John H. Cochrane, the Myron S. Scholes professor of finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, thinks he has the answer.
Speaking informally to reporters at a luncheon sponsored by the Cato Institute this week, Cochrane explained his proposal, which was presented in detail in a recent paper he wrote for the think tank.
In his view, the biggest problem with the current employer-based health care system is the issue of portability, because it affects everybody, whether or not they have insurance. The horror stories of those who lose their jobs and health care coverage, get diagnosed with cancer, surrender their homes, and declare bankruptcy permeate the media and provide the emotional force behind the drive for government-run health care.
Liberal policy analysts have proposed solving the problem by passing laws requiring that insurers grant coverage to anybody who applies and that they charge everybody the same premiums, regardless of risk factors or preexisting conditions.
However, when those ideas have been tried at the state level, the results have been disastrous — the artificially low premiums for the sick drive up the cost of insurance for the healthy. The higher cost deters healthy individuals from buying or maintaining their coverage, and there is a mass exodus of insurers from the state because they don’t want to be left with only the sickest patients. The liberal policy solution to this problem, which is caused by state intervention, is yet more government intervention in the form of a mandate requiring that all individuals purchase health insurance or face a fine.
Cochrane’s alternative solution is the creation of insurance policies that would protect individuals against a hike in premiums they would incur if they were diagnosed with a disease that moves them into a higher risk category.
While such health status insurance policies could be crafted in a variety of ways, one model Cochrane suggests would be to have the health status insurer provide lump sum payments that would be used to cover the cost of the higher premiums. To prevent fraud in the form of fake diagnoses, the payment could be made into an account that could only be used for medical expenses.
The major advantage of the idea is that it would create a competitive market in which insurers would actually chase after sick patients because they’ll be able to charge them higher premiums. It would also lower the cost of insurance for healthier individuals who would no longer have to subsidize the sick indirectly.
Under such a system, if individuals have lapses in their insurance, lose their jobs, or face financial setbacks, as long as they maintain their cheaper health status insurance, they’ll have the ability to purchase insurance should they get stricken with a disease.
Cochrane argues that health status insurance wouldn’t cost people any more than they pay for coverage right now, because today insurance companies are required to renew the polices of anybody they currently insure, and the risk that those customers might get sick in the future is built into the cost of the policies. Cochrane is suggesting that insurers sever those two elements, allowing people to maintain separate health status insurance policies.
Another advantage of such an approach is that right now, insurance policies are short-term contracts. With people moving from job to job and changing coverage so often, insurers have less motivation to encourage healthier habits among beneficiaries. However, health status insurance policies would be issued for the long term, meaning that companies would want to provide incentives for healthier living, perhaps translating into lower premiums for non-smokers and those who remain trim.
During the lunch, Cochrane addressed some of the potential challenges to implementing and sustaining such a system. The most pressing is: what do we do with the millions of Americans who already have preexisting conditions? In response, he acknowledged that there would have to be a role for government during the transition process to finance accounts to subsidize health insurance for those who are afflicted. “If we can get to a system that would be Nirvana, then I would be willing to support lump sum payments to individuals in order to get there,” Cochrane said.
The other complication is posed by the development of genetic testing, which could lead health status insurers to discriminate against people based on their family history as they now do against those with chronic diseases. However, Cochrane argues that this problem would be minor in comparison, because the price of a policy based on calculating the probability that somebody might get cancer is a lot cheaper than the price once there is a certainty that the person has cancer.
While Cochrane’s proposal is mostly conceptual at this stage, the key point, he said, is that there are ways that the free market can cover those with chronic conditions.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/03/competing-for-the-sick
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Mary| 4.3.09 @ 9:07AM
Insurance for the insurance company? More money for them! What's next? Insurance for your car insurance company in case you have an accident and they increase your rates? Why can't we get insurance against politicians?
Bob| 4.3.09 @ 9:29AM
Philip, when you write an article like this, you should check with a group insurance actuary to make sure your assumptions are correct -- they are not. In fact, the cost of group policies made by employers is far less than this kind of insurance would cost. The reason for this is that employers take into account a person's health status before they hire that person. They don't hire older people and sick people and most discriminate against obese people. This is because the way you set the price for a group policy is to do a company "census". Furthermore, once someone is sick, even with company coverage, there are policy limits. Therefore, since one of the principles of insurance pricing is adverse selection, the price on this kind of insurance would be several times what the professor thinks.
There is a difference between thinking at a university and somebody actually working in the industry. This is just another case where the upper middle class gets another economic benefit. Most people in the middle class and below couldn't afford a policy like this.
Tell this professor to talk to a group insurance actuary (not just any actuary) who has actual experience in pricing health care policies and it will blow his theory out of the water.
This is what is wrong about most health care concepts developed by policy wonks -- they don't know how it works in the real world.
Having worked in the insurance industry, my solution (and I have discussed this with actuaries), would be to provide basic, preventative care for everyone. The reason for this is that preventative care is one of the major ways to reduce health care costs. As in Taiwan, this would be paid for on a per person fixed annual fee to the doctor. This would incent the doctor to keep the patient well and would provide basic coverage to all citizens. Then, companies and individuals could buy supplemental policies for increased coverages to let the free market work.
The other major cost, in addition to prevention, is costs in the last year of life. Half of all medicare expenses is on a person's last year of life. We need to lower that cost. We keep people alive far longer than nature intended and then give them too many tests just so the doctors won't be sued. Basic preventative care should include hospice of anyone whose illnesses are terminal and the inability to sue for malpractice.
Now, I'm coming from an insurance/business perspective, and I'm sure there are other solutions as well. As a fiscal conservative, I'm primarily interested in bringing down the cost of health care from 16% to about 10% of GDP so we can be competitive in manufacturing again and increase jobs in this country. The current system doesn't work when it comes to competitiveness even though so many are happy with it. That's because so few people understand economics.
Bram| 4.3.09 @ 10:38AM
Mary,
What you just described is call re-insurance. It is a common practice in the industry.
jharp| 4.3.09 @ 11:06AM
"Having worked in the insurance industry, my solution (and I have discussed this with actuaries), would be to provide basic, preventative care for everyone."
Exactly. Just like the rest of the world does while spending half of what we spend.
And Taiwan is an excellent example. Canada and the UK not so much.
Think First| 4.3.09 @ 12:40PM
Okay I have one major problem with all these health plans, except maybe Taiwan. While keeping patients healthy USED TO be the primary concern, it stopped being so quite some time ago. A couple of examples:
As reported in the International Journal Cancer, January 15, 2008, Dr. Yamamoto using a treatment with a simple Glyco-Protein he first described in 1993, has cured every cancer it has been tested against in a lab, in animals and in limited human trials. 15 breast cancer patients in the latest one, all 15 were completely cured and have remained cancer free for five years now with no surgery, no drugs and no radiation treatments. A simple injection for 16-32 weeks. No side affects in any of the participants in any test. Cost currently is about 150 a pop because it is made in such small lots. That's about 4500 a year, then done for life. For these same patients, the cost of standard current treatment approaches 150,000 with no guarantee of success and if it gets worse, surgery to remove breast tissue with a likely recurrence in 2-4 years. Data from the National Cancer Institute's latest figures for 2004, $72 billion dollars. It pays to keep people sick with this system as it now exists. Until it is changed, treatments won't and people will die for no other reason than they keep companies in business and rich. Reuters even carried the story briefly, He was granted a patent for it after proving it's effectiveness in rigorous testing yet the National Cancer Institute claims it doesn't exist. EVERY cancer it has been tested against, 33 at last count, has been 100% gone with no relapses.
Should I go on with the lady who found a cure for Juvenile Diabetes but had her funding pulled when they found out it was by using ADULT stem cells and not embryonic stem cell research that did the trick?
Or that AIDS and HIV can be cured through immunotherapy that the very researchers making money from treating it and developing drugs for it are trying to have banned because it actually works while their medications don't?
There are many sides to this issue not the least of which is the medical industry has a lot of explaining to do in owning to the fact there are cures for many of the most costly diseases which have increased the cost of health care with no results to show for it? Remember the cut, burn and drug treatment for Cancer has changed little since it's first practice in the late forties.
Maybe for you men out there like me you should listen to the very Doc who developed the PSA test for prostrate cancer and how after his continuing research, now recommends AGAINST it in the strongest terms because it's completely useless and in fact can cause ED and promotes the cancer it is supposed to detect? And no, the type of ED it leaves you with, cannot be helped with any blue pills.
Seen any of this in the press lately?
I didn't think so...
Aaron| 4.3.09 @ 6:01PM
"Having worked in the insurance industry, my solution (and I have discussed this with actuaries), would be to provide basic, preventative care for everyone. The reason for this is that preventative care is one of the major ways to reduce health care costs. As in Taiwan, this would be paid for on a per person fixed annual fee to the doctor. This would incent the doctor to keep the patient well and would provide basic coverage to all citizens. "
Sounds great Bob, but you don't need to look all the way to Taiwan for this annual preventative care that you seek. It already exists in the U.S. Air Force, problem is there aren’t enough doctors to go around, not enough money, time, etc.
I think a lot of old timers would be surprised to know that military folks don't get physicals anymore, they call them PHAs now. Preventative Health Assessments are performed annually on every active duty member the USAF. You used to see your Doc and answer some questions and get any servicing that needed done then sent on your way. Not anymore, we have an annual PHA on the computer via an E-mail. The "exam" questionnaire is reviewed by some staff members and if there are any concerns they will be in touch.
I haven’t had a real health assessment done in years as active duty military member, but Bob in your infinite wisdom you believe this would work for America as a whole. NOT A CHANCE!
wd| 4.3.09 @ 10:44PM
Bob,
Actually, I think you need to follow the same advice that you gave Phil--that of "checking to see if your assumptions are correct."
Preventive care as a major way to save money? Apparently not. According to a recent NEJM article: "Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661)
jharp| 4.3.09 @ 11:01PM
wd| 4.3.09 @ 10:44PM
"Preventive care as a major way to save money?"
Yes. And more importantly. Preventative care to improve the health of America.
I had a friend with two small children die of strep throat. Die. And left two small children. Because of not getting the proper treatment.
You wingnuts are really a bunch of idiotic lying jackasses.
Huggable Teeeerorrist| 4.4.09 @ 3:00AM
One of the most common rejoinders to those who advocate a free market health care system is: how would private enterprise cover those with chronic illnesses?
This is a valid concern.
Phil, is it a valid concern if you or your mom or girlfriend comes down with a brain tumor? I'll just hang out over here until you need to answer, and then I will be sooooo syympatheeetic.
Phil, I lied. Suck My ass, you asshole.
Don| 4.4.09 @ 3:04AM
Phil would shit his mom for a promotion, c'mon.
Bob| 4.4.09 @ 9:52AM
Aaron -- while I was in the Army decades ago, I understand your issue. However, it is working in Taiwan where doctors get paid per patient -- not per service. There are specific tests available to every citizen if they request it. Doctors get more patients (and thus more income) if they build a reputation. It's a free market where doctors compete. The ones that are able to service the most patients earn the most money. That's what keeps the costs down. Remember that in the military you are dealing primarily with a healthy and active community and thus the cost/benefit analysis will be far different.
wd -- the article you quote is correct IF the billing system is on a per service basis rather than a per person basis. That study concluded that doctors were incented to give you more tests. When you pay a doctor on a per person basis, they are incented to give you only the test necessary. Add tort reform to that and you save huge costs.
Willey| 4.4.09 @ 2:11PM
It's too bad that some individuals won't take responsibilty for their actions, and all of us will have to pay for their lack of common sense. Socialized medicine sucks--and many of the vulnerable will die because of rationing. Liberal fascists are all about power, all of the time. They're incompetent, too--our health care is gonna stink big time.
Bob| 4.4.09 @ 3:29PM
Willey -- all politicians, liberal and conservative, are all about power, all of the time. Look what happened when we Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency. The vulnerable die now because of lack of coverage and will die sooner under any system.
The fear of "socialized" medicine is misplaced. I really don't care about the ideology, I just want us to lower the costs of healthcare from the 16% now to about 10% so we can be competitive, have job growth, and reduce the debt. If we don't do those things, healthcare will get worse no matter which system we have. We cannot live with the inefficient and costly system we have now. That's why even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- heavily Republican -- also now wants socialized medicine. You can't lower the costs by 40% by just adding bandaids to what we have now. I'd prefer getting 3 or 4 solutions from being totally socialized to completely capitalistic and test them in several states. Let the lowest cost system win.
American Night Mare| 4.4.09 @ 6:50PM
LIfe is simple, but people are afraid to be responsible for their own lives. The first thing to stop doing, is thinkubg of your selves as battery CHICKENS, if you have no education go to evening classes, read books, the one who can read teach others who can't read.
Stop being Racist IDIOTS, because the ones who wants to profit from you usless soul don't care about your Religion, or your race, but more to do with profits. If you are alive, you can pay TAX, people are not TAXED by race all are TAXED.
Womens Lib was introduced so women can work so all humanity can be TAXED. Blacks was freed from slavery so all can be TAXED. Money for the FED 1913, women couldnot even vote, Blacks was enslaved, now all are collateral, men as well as women and Blacks too. It's good for the Fed, now all men and women and children are to become SLAVES to a world Banking system, and even Cows, goates, Chickens will be taxed, theres will be a tax to eat, a tax to keep warm in winter, theyb call it the Carbon TAX. Driving tax per mile by their CPS Black Box via satalite.
The monkies who is worried about Republican or Democrats, they are both the same, front men, who sell out their country, and their people for money.
What Americans needs to do is start by one day strikes where no one buys gas, food , or go to work. Demand Independence from the Bildregerg group who plans to enslave the world, and kill the excess, via killing babies in the womb, killing babies born with cluster bombs, killing children who are at infant school, or primary or at college, or disabled people, abled bodied people they plan to use chemical and biological means to kill you as long as you are poor Black or white, white's thought they had a place in the New world order, no you are cannon fodder to send to war, to kill and be killed.
America can lead the world, in killing the new world order, if they do not, it will be the first crime against themselves, the rest of the world will starve to death.
They want to clense the world of Surfs, Poor whites, and all poor across the globe.
Forget the Republican Party, they have been a part of the problem for the last 60 years, it became evident under Bush, McCain is who he is but Obama would have done the same Clinton would have done the same sell out the world for money, it would have made no difference who won the election.
Obama looked better than McCain, Clinton sounded stupid, in came the long shot, the media was told what to do, and followed orders Obama was told what to do and is now following orders.
Jordan Maxwell - Queen of England Exposed Part 3.
Google it, and see what the RICH really think of you. They set traps for you like they do for RATS.
Willey| 4.4.09 @ 7:09PM
Nah, Bob--you're a liberal fascist--you should stay at Huff/Post, it's where your soulmates hang out. You've said that you're an older guy; liberals like you should be careful what you wish for--your health care could be rationed because of your age. It'll be your turn to face the fascist democrat culture of death. Good luck--you'll need it.
Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 11:31PM
->“Competing for the Sick”
No. More likely it is more about regulating the 99.1% of the “worker bees” to keep them in line, keep the healthy & useful ones healthy, and to winnow out those with chronic conditions that are severe and debilitating, but who are no longer of interest for experimentation and study (“useless mouths”).
As to comments about "The real world:"
Most are unrealistic, although at least include some elements of reality (such as physical fitness hiring requirements by corporations).
As to the methods by which the present-day medical insurance system functions, then this is only a part of the “real world” (and an eminently ephemeral part of it at that, since these have been undergoing continuous reform over the past 49 years).
"The real world" is the physical circumstances in which we live, especially the infrastructure, how it is developed, and what it is regulated by.
The post-1964 Real World by 2009:
In the so-called “Developed World,” America included: Probably 99.9 percent of the populations of people are thoroughly urbanized, have been de-culturized, and are nothing more than an aggregation of individuals, and small groups of individuals, each with his own idiosyncratic ethical or religious system (to be generous) (regardless of which reformed religion he belongs to, or not), fractured into broad political groups, Taught and Led Astray by propagandists, each group set against one another.
People who have been herded into the newly formed metropolitan areas and who have no control, whatsoever, over the infrastructure they live within, and don’t even question why it has been so Racially reformed this way.
People who are now uniformly laborers who work for someone else, at wages which for 94 percent of them, and rising, are insufficient for a single paycheck to support even the so-called “nuclear family” (which “family” has been redefined as), and which are now mostly tiny (average 1-2 kids).
The re-defined “nuclear family” is itself confounded by the so-called “composite family” at the moment.
People fractured into classes, primarily by the education system.
People who are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DEPENDENT upon government and/or so-called “private enterprise,” the large corporations used by government, with only infinitesimal influence from themselves, for their survival.
People, who if elderly, disabled and debilitated by chronic illness, physical or mental, are utterly dependent upon government and/or so-called “private enterprise.”
People, vast numbers of which, don’t realize these aspects of The Real World, and think themselves to be “independent” (a critical Formation of human beings, who were Taught this, and which was a critical diversion to facilitate the reformation of societies, resulting in the current situation). Such “independence” can only lead to despair as one
ages, and reality sets in.
People who are Trained and Formed.
People who are effectively barbarians, but who think themselves advanced, and who are fit only for re-formation.
The majority of the world, and its peoples, have been anglicized.
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 12:00AM
-->“you should be careful what you wish for--your health care could be rationed because of your age. It'll be your turn to face the fascist democrat culture of death. Good luck--you'll need it.” [“Willy””].
Willy sounds like he Has Been Taught by right-wing Talk Radio: “liberal fascist” and “fascist democrat” (or maybe he just picked it up here at . at least we were spared “idiot,” “moron,” “stupid,” and all of the rest, that the lower classes, whether self-styled conservative” or “liberal,” Have Been Taught to spew out so easily via their radio and internet formation).
-->“health care could be rationed because of your age.”
This is exactly what happens in countries with so-called nationalized health care, especially those of the British Commonwealth and European Union.
Health Care is also increasingly used by them as a means of "Behavior Modification," ala British utilitarianism.
It is also exactly what happens here with the so-called private health insurance and health plans, and not only by age.
People learn what is covered, how, and to what extent, primarily only when they need it.
What planet is Willy living on that he doesn’t know that private health insurance plans include limits (the consequences of which in no way differ from rationing”)?
->“Good luck--you'll need it.” [“Willy””]
Willy shouldn’t be so cocky.
Unless he is a deca-millionaire, so will he.
Although, the old adage was that: “Luck is for Losers”
There’s no luck involved here.
By these standards, and in this situation, 94%, and rising, of Americans fall into the "losers" category.
They’ll get what their given (no matter how they're 'made to feel' that they received it).
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 12:35AM
Science and Technology in The Real World.
Science and Technology ARE NOT “un-regulated” activities.
Scientific investigation, and Technological development, proceeds according to how one’s resources are directed (i.e. In a market system: “where the money is spent”).
Where one’s resources are directed is dependent upon one’s ethical system (in any society or system).
--Nationalized Health Care and Private Health Insurance in The Real World.
Both are man-made systems that regulate the rationing of what used to be known as medical care.
They allocate how much and how medical resources are directed.
The development of these programs is dependent upon the ethical system of the society, or bloc of societies, in which they are developed.
“Reality,” what a concept.
What is the ethical system of so-called developed world, including the U.S.A.?
No one fully knows (except that whatever it is, medical care has been renamed "Health Care" and is now rationed).
So how is it everyone is arguing details, without first being clear what the goal is?
The new ethics have only begun to be taught formally, beginning with “baby steps,” by the reformed religions (to their parishioners and congregations: Effectively 'Take A Bath' and start dressing like adults) and by the large Multi-National Corporations (MNC), and associated large contractors (to their professional staffs: Effectively limit reception of gifts, pay taxes on those received, and engage in community service, so far. . . ).
This all began, circa about 1998 onward.
So far, it’s all rather weak to be called “ethics training,” but that is the term the MNCs give it.
And this after 30 years or so of the reforming religions telling their people “God doesn’t care how you dress” and MNCs like Shell doling out gift incentives by the bushel to its own people and to the contract workers, professional and blue collar (T-shirts, gas cards, various assorted stuff, way too numerous to list, watches, pens, calculaters, cooler cups, foldable chairs, jumper cables, 13 in televison sets. . ., usually under the “safety” programs).
It’s not hard to see the same people who caused the illnesses are now moralizing and providing the insturction to effect the “cure,” with an air of "what were you thinking" and "who taught you this way?"
The same goes for so-called Mental Health, Social Services, Education. . . All the "usual suspects" and "partners."
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 12:55AM
"So far, it’s all rather weak to be called “ethics training,” but that is the term the MNCs give it." [Paul Crowley]
That was my response when I first saw it (and still), but I did notice that for a good many, about 45 years old and younger, including right-leaning moral midgets that fancy themselves "moral," much of it was new, or foreign, to them.
As to the "gifts" questions, then I never took that junk anyway, so had no problem with re-teaching people that they shouldn't have to be bribed with trinkets to do their job.
The only question I failed on the first test, and I don't care that I did, was based on a hypothetical (as usual) that teaches people to be spies and stoolies against their fellow employees.
Some is good, and a needed refersal, but what has been left out, and what is being added, poisen it.
As to medical care: There's nothing good about eugenics or what is effectively only an element of the "Human Husbandry" being institutionalized.
This is a sorry and lousy "culture" that's being formed (and done under the euphemism of "evolving").
Willey| 4.5.09 @ 2:34AM
Paul Crowley: Good Lord, man, what a load of steaming flatulence you've just spewed at us! Megalomania abounds! What a flaming arse--even bigger than Bob!
Daphne| 4.5.09 @ 2:46AM
Whooooeeee, who let the nutter out?
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 7:29AM
“Paul Crowley: Good Lord, man, what a load of steaming flatulence you've just spewed at us! Megalomania abounds! What a flaming arse--even bigger than Bob!” [Willy 4.5.09]
“flaming arse?” Are you British Willy? Or just a wannabe? Or just figured it was better to rein in the foolish "liberal fascist" type nonsense You've Been Taught to type, and thought, maybe, that “flaming arse” sounded more sophisticated [it isn't], to some American ears?
Interesting reply Willy. A mere three sentences, that say absolutely nothing.
But, hey, with the psycho-analytical skills that you seem to believe that you possess, then you can save yourself money on your “mental health” costs in the future with Do It Yourself treatment.
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 7:43AM
“Whooooeeee, who let the nutter out?” [Daphne| 4.5.09]
Yeeeehaaaw, why Tinkers Blinkers, danged if I knows Daphne!
Sorry, after seeing the “Whooooeeee,” I decided not to resist, and to respond in like manner as yourself: being as rude [I concede that it is wrong, would have been better to resist the temptation, and follow the golden rule by treating you as I myself would have
preferred to have been treated by you].
“who let the nutter out?”
What country are you living in Daphne?
The overwhelming majority of the severely mentally ill (A.K.A. “nutters”) in the U.S.A., as in the rest of the so-called Developed World, are no longer cared for in mental institutions.
They were “liberated” in the 1980s (circa, 1978-89)[e.g. dumped out onto the streets]. Funding for mental health care was then severely slashed.
Hence the Average Life Expectancy for Americans who are afflicted by mental illness (a chronic condition, for which there are no cures, and precious few effective treatments), having plunged from slightly higher than the American average in 1971, to 53 years old, today [so-called “Third World” standards].
As I noted above, the the allocation of medical care via the development of so-called “Health Care” programs, is dependent upon the ethical system of the society, or bloc of societies, in which the programs are developed.
As I commented in the article, “The Dr. Will Kill You Now,” in hindsight, Fidel Castro seems to have known what he was about in 1980 when he cleared out the Cuban mental institutions and dumped the Cuban mentally ill into the U.S.A.
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 8:53AM
-->Severely mentally ill (A.K.A. “nutters”).Also Known As “Consumers.”
The title “consumers” was given to the mentally ill by the new reformed American
“mental health” services, during the 1990s, rigidly propagated by psychologists, social
workers, counselors, and mental health” professionals of all kinds, and the mentally ill
themselves.
This is precisely when the propagandists were informing” everyone that there was “no
better time to be diagnosed with a mentally illness” [most failing to be clear about for
whom, precisely, but implying the mentally ill themselves] and making absurd claims
such that Ted Turner was Manic Depressive (A.K.A. Maniac) (a sever psychosis). He
isn’t, and never was.
Success is not a characteristic of lunatics (A.K.A. mentally ill people afflicted with
severe psychosis).
Simultaneously, there was a sharp rise in experimentation of the old technique of "brain
surgery" (A.K.A. lobotomies), but now employing the new medical testing equipment
(MRIs in this instance) released in the 1980s, and further developed in the decades of the
1980s and 1990s (the latter, dubbed “The Decade of the Brain,” in “mental health”
circles). Not to mention, the explosion of so-called anti-psychotropic and anti-seizure
drugs, to “treat,” and able to be tested on, these particular “consumers” (many of the
same drugs were quickly then extended to the “treatment” of “disorders,” ranging
so-called Pre-Menstrual Stress (PMS) syndrome in women, Post-Traumatic Stress
Syndrome (PTSS), in children, veterans, and a plethora of others, and “depression” in the
elderly).
Simultaneously these newly re-labeled “consumers,” and their family members, were
encouraged to learn how to “advocate” for themselves, via “grass-roots” organizing (via
such as the National Alliance For the Mentially Ill, NAMI). Unsurprisingly, they’ve been
dismal failures (unless one counts a plunge in Average Life Expectancy to 53 years Old,
for Americans afflicted by mental illness as “success” for the “consumers”).
Thanks Daphne, for bringing up the topic of this important group of chronic illnesses, whether you intended to, or not.
Some more aspects of The Real World that bear directly on this topic.
Mike| 4.5.09 @ 3:03PM
I've lived in many different countries (I'm a US citisen born and raised but travel and live worldwide because of work)(I have lived in South Africa, Spain, England, France, Italy, Germany, China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, and of course ,the USA for at least a min of a year in each country) and I will say by far "The French System for Medical care is the best". So why don't we take the French System and put in the USA. Unfortunatley, that would be impossible because Americans pay Outrageous prices for there medical care. So what is the solution. We have to drive out these HMO and money-making corporations out of Health-care in the USA!!! If this was done we could afford to have Universal Health Care in this country. This is were the Capitalist system fails in this country. We don't need to be greedy about are health, as this only hurts us as a country in the long run. One other factor I forgot to mention was I also noticed that Americans diet is worst then any other country I have lived. This again is were Capitalism fails!!!! Corporations have convinced Americans McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Burger King, and many other fast-food places are the place to eat. Americans eat way to much processed foods. In many other countries fresh food without preservatives is much more available. The American way of life is ultimately destroying us from within!! Corporate Capitalism must stop in this country before it is to late. We need to go back to small business Capitalism. It is destroying us !!!!!!!!
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 10:05PM
-->It is destroying us !!!!!!!! [Mike| 4.5.09]
Such passion.
-->“I also noticed that Americans diet” [Mike| 4.5.09]
How perceptive of Mike to notice.
This is an issue of Behaviorism, not chronic conditions.
Mike's inclusion of eating habits it not, perhaps, what one might naturally associate as being related to discussion of medical care.
But, medical care has been renamed “health care” (being the "holistic" types Americans have become?), and this issue has effectively been raised here already, via mention of “preventative care.”
Did Mike also notice that nationalized health care has been used to deal with what has been increasing propagandized here in the U.S.A. in the past few years: “the crisis of Obesity?”
As I noted above, in countries with nationalized programs, “Health Care is also increasingly used by them as a means of ‘Behavior Modification,’ by use of coercion, ala British utilitarianism.” [a utilitarian economics has been being proposed from professors at the University of Chicago, and popularized publicly for the past few years].
One example was a couple years back when the British dominion, the Commonwealth of New Zealand, forbade immigration from England of the wife of an Englishman who had immigrated into New Zealand to work (he had expertise in repair of submarine cables).
The man was allowed to immigrate, due to his job skills, but his wife was forbidden to accompany him due to her being “grossly obese.” (She didn’t LOOK what one might consider “grossly obese.” The determination was made on the basis of body fat
measurements). The ruling was made on the basis that since national health is provided, the woman would contribute to an excess burden on the system.
In shore, she had to “slim down” before being allowed to immigrate and join her husband (one assumes that if allowed in, there are no doubt
requirements that she would have to maintain).
[The British empire never allowed its subjects open immigration from the kingdom to its colonies or dominions, unlike the free migration that Americans citizens enjoyed between the different states. This has remained true of the empire's “re-invention of itself” as the “Commonwealth”].
However, once again, “Obesity Control” is not an issue of Nationalized Health Care versus Private Health Insurance.
Either system can be, and is, used for utilitarian Behavior Modification.
In Private Health Insurance, the euphemism has been “preventative care.”
Neither is this a “corporate capitalism” versus “small business Capitalism” (mostly impossible now; except as pretense) or versus “socialism” issue. Any system will suffice, at this point, in which to apply utilitarian Behavior Modification and also eugenics.
PREVENTATIVE CARE in The Real World:
First: It does nothing, in the least, for the majority of chronic conditions.
The so-called “preventative care,” the implication of the euphemism itself extremely questionable, has already been widely propagated, ad nauseum.
To date, it has principally been employed via instruction” in the so-called “Private Health Insurance” systems, but is increasingly being extended to use of coercion. Coercion becomes more and more possible due to the Digital Electronics Revolution (tracking of produce, manufactures, and their sales, world wide), centralization of authority and anonymity of authority (the latter two are now accomplished facts).
For the most part, the focus of “preventative care” has not been to focus on development of medical technology to prevent chronic illnesses, or even treatment (payments for drugs and treatments have limits).
To date, this has at best been used to instruct urbanized people on needs they fail to naturally recognize themselves.
At best, it teaches urbanized people, who haven’t figured it out on their own, how to live in the new conditions that Have Been Made For Them.
Rodents, by instinct, since they are lower animals, take naturally to driving the little wheel in the cage, obtaining necessary exercise as a consequence.
Rodents eat what is made available, and is, by instinct, recognized as edible to them, by their human owners, and are nourished properly, if fed properly, as a consequence.
Human beings, in spite of the anthropomorphism and Darwinism being widely propagated, for decades now, via the mass-communications media, and our reduction to the essentially the same physical situation as a hamster in a cage, are not lower animals.
Rather, Human beings are thinking animals.
Urbanized people need to be Taught to eat properly and to get exercise, since for most of them their lives don’t naturally include exercise via their work or transportation any longer.
But, beyond instruction, it's increasingly being used as coercion for behavior modification and for eugenics.
Again:
Behavior Control is not an issue of Nationalized Health Care versus Private Health Insurance.
Eugenics implementation is not an issue of Nationalized Health Care versus Private Health Insurance.
Both systems can, have been, and are being, used for both.
Elements of what some call the "Culture of Death," a phrase coined by Pope John Paul II [co-opted by Willy above and modified as "the fascist democrat culture of death" (although this has been a purely "bi-partisan" effort where the two major American political parties are concerned)].
Nationalized Health Care and Private Health Insurance in The Real World.
As being developed, both are man-made systems that regulate the rationing of what used to be known as medical care.
They allocate how medical resources are directed and how much.
How medical resources are directed, and how much, is dependent upon the ETHICAL system of the society, or bloc of societies, in which they are developed.
The ethical system of the so-called Developed World, including the U.S.A., is obviously shaping up as having been developed as an amoral one ("whatever is expedient") for the purpose of what, in the pre-reformed America and pre-reformed religions would be recognized as immoral ("evil") practices.
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 10:20PM
Between a Rock and A Hard Place
Urbanized, isolated, made ignorant, de-culturized, utterly dependent, in every way, and with no input, whatsoever, into whatever system is provided, then just what is the average American going to do about it?
As I noted to Willy above:
“By these standards, and in this situation, 94%, and rising, of Americans fall into the "losers" category. They’ll get what their given (no matter how they're 'made to feel' that they received it).”
As I noted in “The Dr. Will Kill You Now,”
it was more than obvious, four years ago, that Americans, born 1939-1959, will be the first generation of Americans in which the majority will die by suicide.
The practice has been made common in in the U.S.A., nation-wide, in the new "hospices," since at least 1989.
Old Age is the ultimate “chronic condition.”
At some point individuals will no longer by able to provide for themselves.
In this country, as now reformed, physically, legal code wise, ethically, where everyone now
works, families have been divided, and family redefined, what "Choice" will 94 percent, and rising, of individual Americans have?
The Real World.
Paul Crowley| 4.5.09 @ 10:26PM
The Real World.
What British “philosophers” and leaders have called “Compromise” (A.K.A. “The Middle Way,” “Third Way,” etc. . . ).
What Marxists call “the dialectic.”
American principles no longer apply. They’ve been erased, especially 1969-present.
CH| 4.5.09 @ 11:52PM
Well, Paul--you're goin' down, too! Enjoy your trip.
Frosty| 4.6.09 @ 12:44AM
Paul's goin' down, too--but he's so strung out on meds, he'll never notice.
Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 1:33AM
“Well, Paul--you're goin' down, too! Enjoy your trip.” [CH| 4.5.09]
Hi CH.
You’re right.
I’m a peon in the “same boat.” Only one man in about six billion.
Be sure, I’m not advocating for this miserable reformed system, nor just “rubbing it in.”
I’ve opposed eugenics all of my life, and continue to, regardless of the physical trap the scum have led the country into by this point in time.
-“Enjoy your trip.”
I’m not a freak.
There hasn’t been, and won’t be, anything ‘enoyable’ about the situation we’ve been put into.
Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 1:44AM
-->“Paul's goin' down, too--but he's so strung out on meds, he'll never notice.” [Frosty|4.6.09]
Did you think To Use this line all by yourself Frosty?
If so, then good use of the training in life that you’ve obviously received (probably the easiest training that you’ve ever gone through. No thought or effort required):
Whatever television show, “Honey I Shrunk The Kids” kind-of- movie, vulgar standup comedian, or other such instructor, that Taught You this.
You're not one of those kind of guys who has also Been Taught to so easily call others "moron,"by any chance are you?
Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 5:44AM
-->“I'm a US citisen” [Mike| 4.5.09]
Mike has been out of the country too long. He uses British rather than American spelling (Brits use “s” in many words where Americans use “z.”).
Perhaps Mike is one of those easily adaptable types and picked it up while living in England, South Africa, Australia, and Singapore [the ‘Mother Kingdom,’ 2 of the 4 original dominions, and an ex colony (although South Africa is treated as something of the proverbial "red-head step child" by the Brits these days): All now “independent countries” in the British Commonwealth of Nations (to use the 1945-49 name of the “Commonwealth”)].
I see that Mike Has Been Taught to refer to himself as a "US citizen" rather than as an American Citizen (I had to have a Canuck border agent make me 'kiss the whip' of this "correct speaking," back in 1983).
-->“I also noticed that Americans diet is worst then any other country I have lived. This again is were Capitalism fails!!!! Corporations have convinced Americans McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Burger King, and many other fast-food places are the place to eat.”
Australia? Come on, now. Aussies have become health-food lovers?! If so, then, wow, what a dramatic change!
-->“(I have lived in South Africa, Spain, England, France, Italy, Germany, China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, and of course ,the USA for at least a min of a year in each country)” [Mike| 4.5.09]
Japan? No "Corporate Capitalism?" A land of "small business owners?" Please, what absurdity.
Earlier I said Mike was perceptive, but, not quite.
If he’s lived in all of these countries, “a min of a year” each (total “min” of 11 years--not counting, “of course,” the U.S.A.), then Mike was grossly Un-Observant.
Every one of these countries has been loaded with McDonalds, Pizza Huts," and a host of "other fast-food places” and have been for well over 30 years, now.
As my oldest brother noted after he returned from a trip to London three years ago:
“It’s just like here.”
Which is exactly true.
My other brother spent more than 15 years living overseas as an expat, working in the petroleum industry, Singapore and Saudi Arabia, and traveled extensively in southeast and southwest Asia, and Europe, 1974-90, and continued to travel, to and from the region, 1990 until his retirement in 2002. Unavoidably, one of the things discussed was the extensive number of American fast-food joints found, world-wide. In the 1980s, while walking through an airport, in Britain I believe, with a bag of food from McDonalds, he had a woman come up to him, point to the bag, and ask him where the McDonalds was? She was a German.
I’ve also traveled, world-wide, due to work, but not much in the past ten years (only a trip to St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands for work purposes). I’ve been on every one of the school-boy continents, except Antarctica, and to over 25 countries.
In 1965, Toronto, was still recognizable as having been developed as a British imperial city, during the Victorian era. By 1983 (probably by 1975), its transformation was such that it was indistinguishable from any major American city. I ate at a Taco Bell in Windsor, the first night into Canada, after crossing over from Detroil. In Quebec, "Poullet Fres de Kentucky" [sic: I'm trying the French spelling of Kentucky Fried Chicken by memory] joints abounded, among all of the other various American chains.
When I arrived in Tokyo, in the mid 1970s, while in the navy, to be homeported on a ship out of Yokosuka, it was impossible not to notice the American fast-food joints and coca-cola signs. I don’t remember any Burger Kings, but both McDonalds and Pizza Huts abounded throughout the Tokyo metropolitan area (biggest in the world at the time: population 20 million people). Hong Kong, still a British colony, and McDonalds was booming. The same in Seoul, Korea, Singapore, Manila, PI, Penang, Malaysia, Jakarta, Indonesia, Sydney, Australia, . . . The countries of the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf were the same in the 1980s.And, this was over 30 years ago. The numbers of these places only exploded, 1980-2001.
By 2001, then McDonalds had become the symbol of America to protest, and, so, the place to go, for anti-American protesters, around the world, for goodness sake! Mike was grossly unobservant during his “min” 11 years of living overseas.
Maybe Mike spent more time among the majority of the populations in many of these places, especially the British countries, who live in poverty.
It’s true, those folks usually are nice and trim, although (blame my American born, and raised, instincts if you will), I don’t believe that always makes them “healthier.”
And, again, fast food joints versus Kimchee [sic], has nothing to do with providing medical care to human beings (especially when we human beings are the ones who are responsible for the doing the work and development that made the advances in medical technology of the past 30 years possible.
The technology that our masters want to now ration out to us in miserable little quantities, or to deny to the majority of us entirely!
But only after authority has made itself un-accountable, non-responsible and invisible.
Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 5:50AM
->“I also noticed that Americans diet is worst then any other country I have lived."
"Worst" is British spelling and phrasing in this instance also.
Cookie| 4.6.09 @ 10:38AM
No, Paul--you ARE a freak. Trust me on this one.
ttr| 11.30.09 @ 3:48AM
TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac
jhgjgh| 11.30.09 @ 10:00PM
iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac
fdsf| 12.9.09 @ 8:57PM
Download RTSP Stream,
About RTSP
rtert| 12.9.09 @ 8:59PM
Download Windows Streaming Media,
ASX to MP3