Do you think there could be a second Great Depression?

[AmateisGal]

I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but when I was in England a few years ago and visited my friends, one's father refused, refused, to go to the local NHS hospital because he was convinced he would die there because the treatment was so bad. Both my friends told me that the private hospitals were far superior in every way. I heard recently that the NHS system may be unsustainable in the near future. Don't know if that's true or not, but then again, almost every country is hurting right now. I really wouldn't be surprised if a world-wide depression hits us soon.

 

[Atticus Finch]

More than any other single factor, the health of a nation’s economy is dependent on the future expectations of its members. If people are pessimistic about the future…if they further reduce or minimize their participation in the economy…then the economy will stagnate or even continue to contract. But if people begin to feel that the worst of the storm is over, and they begin to spend and invest again, the economy will expand. That being said, it is a sad truth that pessimism spreads like cancer. It is far more virulent than optimism. When I listen to the constant bombardment of “news talk” and commentary bemoaning our current economic state, I cannot help but despair that we are our own worst enemy.

Do I think there will be another “Great Depression”? No, I do not. But I do think that to end this current recession and begin moving toward recovery, we must first understand that we cannot elect our way out of economic hardship. No matter how many times we flip-flop back and forth between political parties, we will eventually find that no president or congress possesses a magic bullet that can suddenly make us all prosperous. We cannot, as a nation, sit fretfully waiting for some bureaucratic agency to make the world alright, again. This recovery is all on us…as a people. We must begin “working towards working” again…even if that means relocating or accepting employment that would have been beneath us a few years ago. I am a firm believer that doing something…even if it is a small something…toward solving a problem provides a positive psychological benefit that cannot be over valued. I also believe that when enough people think that they have begun moving toward better times…even if they think their steps are measured in inches…then our collective attitude will improve by miles, and economic recovery will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

AF

 

[AmateisGal]

More than any other single factor, the health of a nation’s economy is dependent on the future expectations of its members. If people are pessimistic about the future…if they further reduce or minimize their participation in the economy…then the economy will stagnate or even continue to contract. But if people begin to feel that the worst of the storm is over, and they begin to spend and invest again, the economy will expand. That being said, it is a sad truth that pessimism spreads like cancer. It is far more virulent than optimism. When I listen to the constant bombardment of “news talk” and commentary bemoaning our current economic state, I cannot help but despair that we are our own worst enemy.

Do I think there will be another “Great Depression”? No, I do not. But I do think that to end this current recession and begin moving toward recovery, we must first understand that we cannot elect our way out of economic hardship. No matter how many times we flip-flop back and forth between political parties, we will eventually find that no president or congress possesses a magic bullet that can suddenly make us all prosperous. We cannot, as a nation, sit fretfully waiting for some bureaucratic agency to make the world alright, again. This recovery is all on us…as a people. We must begin “working towards working” again…even if that means relocating or accepting employment that would have been beneath us a few years ago. I am a firm believer that doing something…even if it is a small something…toward solving a problem provides a positive psychological benefit that cannot be over valued. I also believe that when enough people think that they have begun moving toward better times…even if they think their steps are measured in inches…then our collective attitude will improve by miles, and economic recovery will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

AF

Very well said, Atticus. :eusa_clap I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Edward]

I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but when I was in England a few years ago and visited my friends, one's father refused, refused, to go to the local NHS hospital because he was convinced he would die there because the treatment was so bad. Both my friends told me that the private hospitals were far superior in every way. I heard recently that the NHS system may be unsustainable in the near future. Don't know if that's true or not, but then again, almost every country is hurting right now. I really wouldn't be surprised if a world-wide depression hits us soon.

Fortunately that's nonsense, albeit it nonsense often peddled by the sort of popular press that would support the senior party in our current government, a party which is no friend to the NHS for its own reasons. Certainly some resources are limited - seemingly because they need the money in order to be able to write blank cheques for military adventures of a very dubious nature. NHS funding is not ring-fenced as a separate and distinct part of tax revenue, unfortunately.

 

[AmateisGal]

I'm glad it's nonsense, but what isn't nonsense is how my friends felt about the NHS and the very real terror of someone afraid of dying in one of their hospitals.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Optimism is fine, but it's not always warranted. In his "History of the English speaking peoples," Churchill points out that once the Roman Empire withdrew from Britannia (400 AD? I don't remember exactly), the people of Britain never lived as well again until about 1900. He was talking about the basics: central heat, freedom from fear, freedom from want . . . In between -- periods of solid progress followed by devastating setbacks.

 

[LizzieMaine]

An optimist is merely a pessimist who hasn't yet lost their job.

 

[Flicka]

Fortunately that's nonsense, albeit it nonsense often peddled by the sort of popular press that would support the senior party in our current government, a party which is no friend to the NHS for its own reasons. Certainly some resources are limited - seemingly because they need the money in order to be able to write blank cheques for military adventures of a very dubious nature. NHS funding is not ring-fenced as a separate and distinct part of tax revenue, unfortunately.

I have no personal experience of the NHS, but my friends in Britain have nothing but good to say about it. [huh]

 

[Flicka]

Optimism is fine, but it's not always warranted. In his "History of the English speaking peoples," Churchill points out that once the Roman Empire withdrew from Britannia (400 AD? I don't remember exactly), the people of Britain never lived as well again until about 1900. He was talking about the basics: central heat, freedom from fear, freedom from want . . . In between -- periods of solid progress followed by devastating setbacks.

Well, I would argue that far from everybody in Roman Britain had central heating, freedom from fear and freedom from want (at least that's what archeological evidence implies). So the question is, was that claim by Churchill the result of ignorance or did he equal "the people of Britain" with its upper strata?

 

[Angus Forbes]

Good grief! Churchill made no claim that everyone lived the good life. Rather, he was talking about "on average." Perhaps he was ignorant, but his Nobel Prize for historical writing would tend to suggest otherwise.

 

[John in Covina]

First off if you want health care we then simply must conscript all of the people that work in the health care systems, no private business -everyone is a government worker. Doctors, nurses, admin, drug companies, medical equipment, everything. Then we can have health provided like the best parts of VA, the Post Office and the DMV all rolled into one. Ofcourse some of it will be like FEMA, the Homeland security and the ATF but it will be worth it.

Businesses are supposed to operate like business and charities like charities. When business is operated like a charity or charities like business they tend to fall short and lose sight of their true function.

The greatest challenge for a business is when it grows to be big, then it loses the connection of providing a service to people to make money and moves to providing the least posible and make money. (Ths is usually caused by accountants that bring inefficiency experts to "maximize potential.")

Government tends to protect and grow the administration portion of any department so that every worker that comes close to actually doing work has an individual handler whose job it is to slow down what ever work is being done to make sure all guidelines are being followed and all addvantages are given to the popular victim group.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

That's what I love about this thread. I keep telling myself that I'm not going to look at it anymore because there's always going to be something that invariably makes my head explode, yet I keep coming back to it. [huh]

 

[Angus Forbes]

First off if you want health care we then simply must conscript all of the people that work in the health care systems

Not necessarily. Another way could be as follows: if you get sick, you are brought before a government death panel. If they determine that it would cost more than $75 to restore you to health, you are summarily executed. An even simpler system would be to kill everyone past the age of, say, 65 (we could call it Medicare, part Z).

 

[Undertow]

The US system as follows: (Let's use a hypothetical inpatient surgery; e.g. gall bladder removal.)

Overall
You have pains Monday evening, you call an ambulance, you go to the hospital. They run some tests, probably an x-ray, an MRI and some blood tests. They find your gall bladder is on the fritz, they admit you as inpatient, put you under, and operate. You're inpatient for four days while they monitor you. You're released early Saturday morning. You have a follow up with your doctor in a month. All is well. You pay your deductible, coinsurance and meet your out-of-pocket expenses for the year. Yay!

What's happening behind the scenes
1. You ordered an ambulance. They charge per mile, plus a usage fee. If they're an independant contractor as most are (not under pay of the hospital), they will most likely be out of your network. If your insurance covers their fee at all, it will only be partial; you will foot the rest of the bill and it won't count towards your out-of-pocket maximums.
2. You had tests run. The xray will require a "facility" fee, which is what the hospital charges for usage of their machine, and there is a "professional" fee, which is the doctor reading the xrays. Often, two doctors read xrays - if even for only a moment, therefore, two professional fees, plus the facility fee. Same applies to the blood test and the MRI. The facility is allowed, for example, $75 per xray, and the Dr.'s are allowed $45 per reading. Those slide upwards for MRI's and downwards for blood tests. They know they're being paid, so they WILL charge for these things.
3. You had surgery with anesthesia. First, you're going to pay the "facility" fees again: there's a room charge, drug administration fees, fees for utensils including scalpels, towels, trays (it's not like they throw them away afterward - but they are allowed to bill for them each time), anesthesia fees, etc,. Then you have your professional fees - a surgeon and assistant surgeon each charge for their services, and an anesthesiologist charges for theirs.
4. You were inpatient for monitoring. Each day runs you a room charge as well as any utensils, items, drugs, or pain killers are used. This includes saline solution, bandages, towels, bedpans - every single tiny thing you can think of is being charged to your insurance. Meanwhile, you'll have "professional" fees again - after all, a doctor stuck his foot in the door, asked you how you felt and walked away - that's at least $150 for a "visit" (no kidding, I wish I was making this up).

Now you must HOPE and PRAY you A.)don't have more than one insurance plan - your insurance can deny for a "coordination of benefits" problem. B.)aren't of working age - insurance can deny claims, send you a questionnaire about possible worker's comp, and refuse to pay until you respond. C.)have had surgery outside of your home state - you insurance may require medical records before they will process a claim from a hospital outside of their state. Medical records reviews often take a minimum of 60-90 days before a claim is reconsidered.

Knowing all this, health care providers literally create budgets knowing they will be reimbursed for every little thing they charge - and therefore they DO charge every little thing so they can meet their targets. Doesn't mean they were efficient, effective or safe. All it means is they know they can charge for it, so they do.

Sorry for the long example, but this is how our system runs, for better or worse.

 

[William Stratford]

Looking at the posts on the US Health Care system it reminds me very much of the way that we see it from over here....that they check your credit rating before they check your pulse....

That's what I love about this thread. I keep telling myself that I'm not going to look at it anymore because there's always going to be something that invariably makes my head explode, yet I keep coming back to it. [huh]

Does your health insurance cover that?

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And somewhere in there is the $15-20 they charge for Tylenol.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is why, when I'm sick, I shut the door, pull the blinds, and grit my teeth. When I ruptured my back, I laid on the couch for four months with a bag of frozen peas pressed against my sciatic nerve. With a $10,000 deductible on my "insurance," that's all I can afford to do.

The day they started talking about the "health care industry" -- a term which was unknown before the early 1970s -- was the day medicine jumped the shark. I have no interest whatsoever in living to be 100, or even 70, if I have to live it in thrall to such an epic perversion of human decency.

 

[Undertow]

And somewhere in there is the $15-20 they charge for Tylenol.

That's right. I think people would be sick if they knew just what they were paying for - but the would perpetuate the cycle, no wouldn't it. lol

Whether the recent Supreme Court decision is good or bad, we should at least know what we're dealing with.

 

[Undertow]

This is why, when I'm sick, I shut the door, pull the blinds, and grit my teeth. When I ruptured my back, I laid on the couch for four months with a bag of frozen peas pressed against my sciatic nerve. With a $10,000 deductible on my "insurance," that's all I can afford to do.

The day they started talking about the "health care industry" -- a term which was unknown before the early 1970s -- was the day medicine jumped the shark. I have no interest whatsoever in living to be 100, or even 70, if I have to live it in thrall to such an epic perversion of human decency.

I hear that, Lizzie. When I'm sick - it had either better kill me, or leave me alone. I don't have the time or money to screw around with a scheister who needs to meet his target for the month.

 

[Flicka]

Good grief! Churchill made no claim that everyone lived the good life. Rather, he was talking about "on average." Perhaps he was ignorant, but his Nobel Prize for historical writing would tend to suggest otherwise.

Well, "on average" is also very, very wrong. We're talking about a small minority, living in villas which was never, ever the norm or even "the average" way of life. I know Churchill wasn't ignorant (his biography on the 1st Duke of Marlborough is excellent, one of the best things written about him), so even though the view of Roman Britain has admittedly changed since the days of Mortimer Wheeler, I know which alternative my money is on...

Sorry, but Churchill was brilliant in many ways, but he wasn't flawless, and I think he had a limited social viewpoint.