Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Artaguito

Son Los Servicios De Salud Un Derecho?

612 posts in this topic

CITA(lexuswestcoast @ Jun 19 2009, 08:08 PM) [snapback]2865480[/snapback]
si tu te crees que el top 1% solamente va a pagar por todo esto pues sinceramente vives en la-la land. Esto nos afecta a todos porque todos estamos en un mismo bote.
En ningun sistema 1% puede cargar con el 99%....eso es una mentira el quien te diga eso. Obama si tiene que subir los taxes tarde o temprano para pagar por todo esto o tiene que seguir tomando prestado de Japon y China y pasarla la papa caliente a la proxima administracion....There is no way around it and it doesnt matter how you slice it, we all have to pay for it.

El problema estaba ahi cuando llego Obama.....veremos a ver si se pone peor cuando el salga.



I think Julian and I met before he 'saw the light'....if he is the same man from Maryland and I think he is. He has CHANGED.

And he is the reason why I even write to people on the internet Lexus.

Lol.

He reminds me of you. Conservative but with a good heart. The good heart will lead you to excellent things. It is a valuable thing to have it. Even more than the intellect....a good heart is the definition of greatness.

You have a good heart Michael.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(FearlessBox @ Jun 19 2009, 11:50 PM) [snapback]2865499[/snapback]
I think Julian and I met before he 'saw the light'....if he is the same man from Maryland and I think he is. He has CHANGED.

And he is the reason why I even write to people on the internet Lexus.

Lol.

He reminds me of you. Conservative but with a good heart. The good heart will lead you to excellent things. It is a valuable thing to have it. Even more than the intellect....a good heart is the definition of greatness.

You have a good heart Michael.


Claro que he cambiado. Es importante crecer aunque uno se esté poniendo viejo.

Espero que papotito siga bién
CIAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(Julián @ Jun 19 2009, 06:08 PM) [snapback]2865470[/snapback]
Tu respuesta es simple y al grano.
Lo importante es que poco a poco salgamos de la jungla en donde cada animal se tiene que defender por si solo.

No te culpo. También he trabajado duro toda la vida y nadie me ha regalado nada.

Sucede que yá pasé por la etapa en que te encuentras. Ahora entiendo que hay algo más allá. Hay que fijarse en la historia para entender que el camino al socialismo es inevitable. No te lo digo porque crea que Chávez o Fidel hacen las cosas bién. De hecho estos se han equivocado por ser dogmáticos.

Lo importante es entender que el socialismo llega y el capitalismo lo carga a sus espaldas. Hay que crear conciencia de no ser avaricioso y de trabajar duro por el solo hecho de trabajar duro. Trabajar duro porque uno tiene orgullo y no porque uno sueña ser rico. El trabajo de cada individuo beneficia a la sociedad.

Los capitalistas benefician a la sociedad de una manera enorme cuando dejan de ser avariciosos y por fín entienden que explotar a otros por un dólar extra no vale la pena.

El que es bueno se hace rico sin tener que tener una tendencia explotar a otros. No hay cosa mas fea que millonarios peleandose por diez pesos porque ese es el susodicho "work ethic" de la condición Calvinista.

La cultura capitalista tiene la mala costumbre de exprimir lo mas posible sin contemplar consecuencias. Uno cosa es ser capitalista y trabajar duro y otra cosa es ser avaricioso y tratar de ahorrar lo mas posible en el negocio porque eso es supuestamente honorable.




Esto es pura catedra del "class warfare". "Explotar a otros"? "Exprimir lo mas posible"?

El deseo de ganancia individual (o corporativo) es lo que hoy en dia, y no en 50 o 100 an~os, me permiten connectarme a todos ustedes 'wireless' y compartir ideas. No fue un burocrata bondadoso que organizo a cientificos empleados del gobierno a desarrollar la tecnologia digital, fue la expectativa y la promesa de LUCRO que motivo a esos individuos y corporaciones a ser mejores que la competencia.

El CEO de mi compan~ia escribio un term paper en la universidad delineando el "Overnight Delivery System" que usamos hoy. El maestro, un socialista lo mas seguro, le dio "C" por ser una idea imposible de implementar. El deseo de el, y de otros que empezaron FedEx con el en solo 35 an~os han revolucionado la industria y el se hizo multimillonario. A quien el explota, a mi que le vuelo los aviones de carga? Me deberia yo sentir miserable que mi labor lo esta haciendo a el mas rico?
El U.S. Mail nos paga a nosotros sobre un billon al an~o para que le volemos la carga a ellos. El gobierno se dio cuenta que nuestra compan~ia era mas eficiente que ellos (gracias a esa ambicion por ganancias) y hoy en dia los paquetes que tu recibes 'Express Mail' del Correo vinieron montados en un avion de FedEx.


Los capitalistas benefician a la sociedad cuando tienen entre ellos una competencia salvaje para ganarse los dolares de los consumidores de los productos. 'Windows' no existe gracias a un comite de gobierno, existe gracias a la implementacion comercial de un genio de computadoras. A quien exploto Bill Gates y Microsoft para ganarse sus billones?
En los carros, Toyota y Honda en los ultimos 15 an~os han estado sacando vehiculos que al publico les gusta y le han estado sacando el calzo a Detroit. Como mi viejo decia, "el que no se mueve...." asi que como camaron dormido, a Detroit se lo esta llevando la corriente, se creen que por ser carros americanos la gente los va a comprar aunque no tengan los 'perks' y los 'good looks' de los carros japoneses.


Julian: Uno cosa es ser capitalista y trabajar duro y otra cosa es ser avaricioso y tratar de ahorrar lo mas posible en el negocio porque eso es supuestamente honorable.

No Julian, lo que es honorable para el comerciante es coger parte de esas ganancias y arriesgarlas en inversion o expansion del negocio con el incentivo de aumentar esas ganancias. Lo que pasa es que ustedes se creen que para que uno gane el otro tiene que perder y no necesariamente ese es el caso. Para que entiendas como es la cosa primero tienes que aceptar que una economia capitalista crea nuevas riquezas donde antes no existian. Hasta que no aceptes ese principio te quedaras chillando goma en el mismo sitio hablando de "explotacion", "cero sum", y otras necedades socialistas.



J: Lo importante es que poco a poco salgamos de la jungla en donde cada animal se tiene que defender por si solo.


El defenderse por si solo hace mas fuerte y mas aguzados a los individuos. Las ovejas que tienen en una jaula bien protegida de los lobos nunca dejaran de ser ovejas. Yo prefiero la jungla a la jaula. Edited by Artaguito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(Julián @ Jun 20 2009, 12:31 AM) [snapback]2865502[/snapback]
Claro que he cambiado. Es importante crecer aunque uno se esté poniendo viejo.

Espero que papotito siga bién
CIAO



Julian, me alegro mucho que has cambiado. Y haz crecido.

Papotito disfruta de buena salud ahora....debido a muchos cambios en muchas maneras para mejorar la salud de todos.

Yautia murio Julian. Pero solo despues me di cuenta....que clase de VIDA vivio....

Ahora mas que nunca es importante saber que la medicina debe ser gratuita para TODOS y de alta calidad.

Yautia se manejo al hospital y diez dias despues....murio. Yo nunca en mi vida he manejado por una carretera en la oscuridad como una loca a 100 millas por hora...porque el estupidisimo aereopuerto se iba a tardar mas que la carretera.

Si cambiaste por leer y todo....pues ME HICISTES SUPER FELIZ HOMBRE!!

Cuidate siempre.....

Vida Edited by FearlessBox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CITA(Artaguito @ Jun 20 2009, 12:51 AM) [snapback]2865504[/snapback]
Esto es pura catedra del "class warfare". "Explotar a otros"? "Exprimir lo mas posible"?

El deseo de ganancia individual (o corporativo) es lo que hoy en dia, y no en 50 o 100 an~os, me permiten connectarme a todos ustedes 'wireless' y compartir ideas. No fue un burocrata bondadoso que organizo a cientificos empleados del gobierno a desarrollar la tecnologia digital, fue la expectativa y la promesa de LUCRO que motivo a esos individuos y corporaciones a ser mejores que la competencia.

El CEO de mi compan~ia escribio un term paper en la universidad delineando el "Overnight Delivery System" que usamos hoy. El maestro, un socialista lo mas seguro, le dio "C" por ser una idea imposible de implementar. El deseo de el, y de otros que empezaron FedEx con el en solo 35 an~os han revolucionado la industria y el se hizo multimillonario. A quien el explota, a mi que le vuelo los aviones de carga? Me deberia yo sentir miserable que mi labor lo esta haciendo a el mas rico?
El U.S. Mail nos paga a nosotros sobre un billon al an~o para que le volemos la carga a ellos. El gobierno se dio cuenta que nuestra compan~ia era mas eficiente que ellos (gracias a esa ambicion por ganancias) y hoy en dia los paquetes que tu recibes 'Express Mail' del Correo vinieron montados en un avion de FedEx.
Los capitalistas benefician a la sociedad cuando tienen entre ellos una competencia salvaje para ganarse los dolares de los consumidores de los productos. 'Windows' no existe gracias a un comite de gobierno, existe gracias a la implementacion comercial de un genio de computadoras. A quien exploto Bill Gates y Microsoft para ganarse sus billones?
En los carros, Toyota y Honda en los ultimos 15 an~os han estado sacando vehiculos que al publico les gusta y le han estado sacando el calzo a Detroit. Como mi viejo decia, "el que no se mueve...." asi que como camaron dormido, a Detroit se lo esta llevando la corriente, se creen que por ser carros americanos la gente los va a comprar aunque no tengan los 'perks' y los 'good looks' de los carros japoneses.
Julian: Uno cosa es ser capitalista y trabajar duro y otra cosa es ser avaricioso y tratar de ahorrar lo mas posible en el negocio porque eso es supuestamente honorable.

No Julian, lo que es honorable para el comerciante es coger parte de esas ganancias y arriesgarlas en inversion o expansion del negocio con el incentivo de aumentar esas ganancias. Lo que pasa es que ustedes se creen que para que uno gane el otro tiene que perder y no necesariamente ese es el caso. Para que entiendas como es la cosa primero tienes que aceptar que una economia capitalista crea nuevas riquezas donde antes no existian. Hasta que no aceptes ese principio te quedaras chillando goma en el mismo sitio hablando de "explotacion", "cero sum", y otras necedades socialistas.
J: Lo importante es que poco a poco salgamos de la jungla en donde cada animal se tiene que defender por si solo.


El defenderse por si solo hace mas fuerte y mas aguzados a los individuos. Las ovejas que tienen en una jaula bien protegida de los lobos nunca dejaran de ser ovejas. Yo prefiero la jungla a la jaula.



Artaguito we are not talking about 'comerciantes' we are talking about HEALTH. Most developed nations realize that you have to have atleast two parts of society socialized. One of them is education and the other is health. The alternative to not having access to health or education for the vast majority of people? NO DEVELOPMENT in any real sense.

You got to educate people in this world. Especially the kids that have parents who don't make all that much mula...money. And second you need to keep people healthy. Productive and healthy.

Did you see the video? Doctors in the UK who work for the public health service are REWARDED for keeping patients healthy. And they don't have to deal with the hassle of insurance companies telling them they can't accept a patient's request if it is not pre approved or something of that nature.

I have private insurance through my husband's job. I went in for my annual check up and so on....and what did I find? The doctor told me a week later to call the insurance company back to assure them I did not have any other insurance policy at all. Why? Because it is important...very important...to delay in any way the payment of a bill in the hopes of keeping the money in the bank collecting interest and making a profit.

Did you hear the testimony of a medical insurance claims representative in 'SICKO'? He is sure he caused harm. Isn't it part of the hippocratic oath to 'DO NO HARM'. If a doctor can't cure a patient to at least do no harm. That is the least one should do. Why create more stress for a person who already has a lot of stress to deal with? When people are sick and jobless it is when they NEED COVERAGE THE MOST. Yet if you lose a job you can easily lose your medical coverage if you can't pay your COBRA med insurance charges. You have to pay your insurance premium plus your employer's part...and some employers pay a big chunk of your medical insurance premiums....most unemployment payments are a fraction of your full time salary.

In conclusion, if you see medical insurance and health coverage as a for profit business....forget it. You will drop the people with pre existing conditions, you will drop the people who need expensive specialized care, you will drop the people who are old and expensive to pay for...and the very young who are extremely sick and would need MANY YEARS of treatment and specialists for....basically you are 'objectified' and 'dehumanized' and some beaurocrat in some for profit business will deny you treatment if it means someone can't make money by you using the services.

To me that is dysfunctional. Even in primitive societies Artaguito the medicinal plants were used to treat all members of the tribe that were sick. Why treat the sick without thought of reward? Because quite simply it is RIGHT thing to do.

Most of the European system was created and or updated after WWII. The trauma of the war and the people dying and wounded.....it changed the way the Europeans thought about medicine for all time....

Does it really take the USA the experience of MASSIVE bombs and incredibly bad wars in which rubble and dead mangled bodies en masse....left behind....for the USA American leaders and policy makers to realize.....preserving life is more important than squeezing dollars out of working people who are TAPPED OUT financially as it is?

I hope it won't take some terrorist bombing with a nuclear weapon for the USA government to wake up and realize...that they need to treat ALL AMERICANS with the same dedication and without thought of PROFIT involved at all. And see medicine as UNIVERSAL and the treatment of all sick people as an inalienable HUMAN RIGHT.

Because it is. It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tyler Cowen: High US Medical Spending Spurs Innovation

While many complain about the continuing rise of health care costs which far exceeds the overall rate of inflation, in a New York Times op-ed piece Marginal Revolution blogger and economist Tyler Cowen argues high US health care costs accelerate the rate of medical research and development and saves many lives in the longer run.

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

Tyler says European-style government cost controls would save money in the short run but slow innovation and therefore shorten lives and cost more in the long run. I agree.

Europeans fund a small fraction of the medical research that Americans fund.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

Americans do not live longer than people in other countries in part because the innovations that get funded in America get used around the world. In Canada and some European countries drugs are sold for lower prices than in the US. So drug companies make most of their profits and therefore get most of their revenue to fund research by selling products in the United States. Effectively the United States is subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world.

What I'd like to see: Policies should be aimed at automating the delivery of care. The large armies of nurses, technicians, office workers, and other deliverers of health care rarely innovate. Automation of their work would increase the rate of innovation by freeing up money and labor to do more research and development.

The problem we have is that the high price of medical care funds both innovation and waste. The number of dollars that goes to innovation is relatively small as compared to the dollars that go to delivering care using existing technology with lots of labor. High prices of drugs provide an incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs and other better treatments. But high costs for labor do not provide as much of an equivalent incentive to innovate to improve medical industry labor productivity. The demand for medical care is too inelastic due to the ways medical care is paid for.

I'd like to see much larger budgets for government-funded medical research. Currently the US federal and state governments are increasing their medical care spending faster than the rate of inflation while increasing medical research spending is growing more slowly than the rate of inflation (one of the unappreciated costs of the very expensive Iraq war btw). 18 out of 19 NIH institutes were proposed for budget cuts for fiscal year 2007. Note that if their budgets were maintained at the same level of nominal dollars they'd get cut about 3% due to inflation. This is exactly the wrong direction. The $2 billion per week burn rate of the Iraq war would more than quadruple federal research spending if the war was ended and the money shifted to research. That would save many lives.

Government funded research spending is a small fraction of government funded health care. Medicaid alone was projected at $338 billion in costs for 2006. Add in Medicare which is projected to be $450 billion in fiscal year 2007 and the total cost of just those two health programs (i.e. not including costs of federal employee health insurance, VA hospitals, etc) is about $800 billion. That's about 27 times the amount spent on federally funded medical research and the ratio is rising.

Medicare costs are projected to grow at 9% per year while government medical research funding declines.

Right now, one of the reasons why we have a long-term fiscal problem is that health care costs, themselves, are projected to grow way above the rate of inflation. We're projecting Medicare costs will grow out over the course of the budget window about 9 percent per year.

This points to a problem in Tyler's analysis: Yes, huge medical funding has accelerated medical research, past tense. But the costs are getting so huge that cost controls are getting placed on medical expenditures and those cost controls will cut into the profits for new drugs and treatments far more than they cut into care delivered with existing technology. At the same time, government funding of research is dropping. We are therefore at risk of a gradual decrease in both public and private funding of medical research and development.

Seems to me we need policies that will make research and development a rising fraction of total money spent on health care. One idea: Make NIH spending a fixed percentage of Medicare spending. When Medicare spending rises 9% then the far smaller NIH spending should rise as well. How about making NIH spending 10% of Medicare spending?

Another suggestion: How about big prizes for achievements that increase labor productivity in health care? For example, how about a multimillion dollar prize for the first surgical team that removes 10 gall bladders in a record setting time and then another prize for the next time that bests the previous record time? Also, how about multimillion dollar prizes for the first totally robotic surgery for each of several popular types of surgery? $10 million and $20 million dollar prizes are very small potatoes compared to the trillions spent on health care. But the innovations that the prizes would spur would pay back in the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars.





The countries that have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE simply do not spend money on research and development at the pace the US does and it could be argued that instead they benefit from the progress that the US provides in medical research without having to pay for it.

How successful would UHC be in these countries if they had to pay for the progress they benefit so greatly from? I will venture a guess that they would fail miserably.

When will countries that have UHC acknowledge the huge benefit they receive from medical spending in the US and freely offer to pay their fair share? I predict that if the US does go to a UHC system, global healthcare numbers will decline by significant margins within 10 years because no other country will be willing to foot the bill for R&D as the US has to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Aqui esta el link que fue reportado en el NEW YORK TIMES (un periodico que no tiene nada de conservador)



Visit



READ and weep Fearles y los demas.......Europa chupa y se beneficia de los billones que gasta EEUU en innovaciones y estudios y ellos no pagan nada por eso.



American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. [The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world. {Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University and co-writer ofa blog at www.marginalrevolution.com. He can be reached at tcowen@gmu.edu.]
]




Julian como yo dije, EEUU saco a Europa de la banca rota y cuando estaban destrozados despues de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y hoy en dia Europa depende en grande en la innovaciones y estudios medicos que ellos no tienen que pagar pero que ellos se benefician en grande de los EEUU.


Dime que sociedad y pais esta mas avanzado?.....que haria Europa si EEUU no gasta los billones que gastan en innovaciones medicas que Europa se beneficia y no tiene que pagar.


EEUU gasta mas de $94.3 billion en innovaciones y estudios que todo el mundo del planeta se benefiician....La Union Europa que tiene mas poblacion que EEUU y ellos gastan menos de 4 billones.


Como dicen los Chinos: Beware of what you wish for!!!


Vamos a ver si la Union Europa no se va a la banca rota si tienen que pagar los billones que paga EEUU para innovaciones medicas y medicina y seguir con su sistema de medicina socializada.....te apuesto que su sistema se cae en 10 anos. Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Aqui hay otro link por Thomas Boehm “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?”


http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvo...oehmArticle.pdf

Resumiendo su reporte que lo pueden leer en su totalidad arriba en el link, el concluye:


That the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.





Una vez mas, que pais esta mas avanzado Julian?.................dont take my word for it.....read!






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno, me fui a disfrutar de la tarde y la velada para regresar y encontrarme que se han celebrado las eliminatorias regionales para las pruebas olimpicas de la ignorancia en este tema... Hoy dia hay cuidado medico universal y gratuito en los EEUU... A los indigenas en las reservaciones se les hadado cuidado medico gratuito desde el 1897... Es un fracaso de proporciones magnas.

Julian con su sonsonete que parece de los "Borg" "You will be Socialized, Resistance is useless"... Olvida que para que un programa sea exitoso, el mismo tiene que poder sostenerse. De hecho, el socialismo ya tuvo su epoca donde las grandes potencias lo hicieron suyo y hoy dia lo han abandonado por un capitalismo disfrazado como lo hay en la Republica Popular China o en la antigua Union Sovietica. Pero claro, esos son detalles que nuestros socialistoides reaccionarios y miopes de intelecto pigmeo prefieren obviar. BTW, yo me lei a Marx & Engels en High School y a Adam Smith a los 18. Mas o menos a la misma edad que me lei el librito rojo de Mao.

Aunque es cierto que la salud es importante para todos, ya que una fuerza laboral saludable pierde menos dias por enfermedad que una de viciosos a la azucar y la grasa... Si consideramos la naturaleza humana de tratar de obtener el mayor rendimiento del menor exfuerzo, es casi garantizado que eventualmente estos programas llevaran a Europa a la quiebra, o que los servicios medicos publicos seran degradados al punto que lo requiera el presupuesto. La otra opcion, es precisamente el incremento en la recaudacion lo cual resultara en otra runfla de problemas.

Hasta la forista que si vive en Espana tiene un seguro privado... Si la medicina socializada es una chuleria tan grande, por que es que todavia se necesita cobertura medica privada?

De hecho, yo considero que si vamos a hacer como la decadente Roma, y vamos a empezar a regalar pan, vino y circo, junto con el cuidado de salud, el estado obligue al "jodido" a vivir de una forma responsable metiendole obligaciones de dieta y estilo de vida. De hecho, ya en Howard County en Maryland, se esta practicando con algo parecido: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=105444714
"Howard County Health Commissioner Peter Beilenson is in charge of the program.

For between $50 and $85 per month, he says, each person who qualifies gets six or seven visits to the primary care center per year, depending on whether the person is male or female. Under the plan, hospital and emergency room costs are waived, as are charges for about 17 specialties, including mental health. Many prescriptions are free, or are subsidized.

"We have prescription medication subsidies for those that we are unable to get for people for free," Beilenson says. "We are leveraging existing pharmacy assistance programs that Big Pharma has out there — that almost no one who is uninsured knows about."

And every person in the plan is assigned to a personal health coach who develops a health action plan, Beilenson says."

Y sigue:
"The first lesson he learned is that the ranks of the uninsured include a lot of people who are actually entitled to existing public coverage. Of those 20,000 uninsured in Howard County, 5,000 were children. About 25 percent of them were enrolled in short order in the existing Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP.

Of the 15,000 adults younger than 65 who were uninsured, about one-third of them also turned out to be eligible for some existing state or federal health plan, even though they didn't know it or hadn't bothered to enroll.

Beilenson says that confirms what people think about the uninsured, nationally.

"All the studies we've seen nationally show that between 25 and 30 percent of the uninsured in the country are eligible for existing entitlement programs and either don't know it or don't sign up," Beilenson says. "That is an important lesson to be learned. Because of the 48 to 50 million uninsured Americans, you could say — even to be conservative about it — 10, 12, 14 million of them, you don't have to have any new program whatsoever. You just have to do better outreach and better targeting of people to get them enrolled in those programs."


En otras palabras, el modelo actual de salud en los EEUU no es el culpable de la mala cobertura de salud een el sector de los "jodidos", sino que es la misma ignorancia o vagancia del jodido que tiene la culpa.

El articulo nos dice algo que es clave en los planes del ungido, o cualquier otro lider socialista, para jodernos a todos:

"Beilenson and others cite another reason for the low enrollment: There just isn't adequate public awareness. The county has now added a marketing budget to get the word out.

But the paltry enrollment figures have also confirmed Beilenson's belief in the need for a reform that isn't even on the table in Washington.

"I am 100 percent convinced that if we are going to have comprehensive affordable quality coverage for all and spread the risk amongst the entire population, you have to have individual mandates," he says.

That means people would be required by law to have health insurance, something President Obama campaigned against."

Pero esta no seria la primera postura de su gesta politica que el ungido viola...

El articulo termina con otra perla de la revelacion:
"Here's another question posed by Healthy Howard. The average American adult spends almost $8,000 per year on health care. The Howard County program charges no more than 10 percent of that. But it makes ends meet, in part, by getting specialist care donated pro bono.

With just a few hundred potential patients, that's handled easily enough. But if the program were better subscribed, specialists would probably not donate that much service free of charge, and — if they were reimbursed — the costs of the program would obviously mount. Then the question is: Who pays?

Beilenson is a medical and public health professional, but he also knows a few things about politics. He grew up as the son of a California Democratic congressman. He was health commissioner of the city of Baltimore and ran second in a Democratic congressional primary there.

Can Washington cut through the Gordian knot this time? Or could it make some small incremental improvements? He says he thinks big reform is possible — and he's "very much not an incrementalist."

"This is one of the rare instances, certainly in a generation, where at least most of the stars are coming together at the right time," Beilenson says. "My experience has been overwhelmingly, here in Maryland particularly, that if you make incremental changes, that's it for the entire term, the entire session. … The cuts at the Gordian knot are twofold: If the federal government has an individual mandate plus subsidizes the cost to help those who couldn't otherwise afford it get it, I think that is the only way we are going to get to universal coverage."

Beilenson's aims may sound a lot more palatable in a wealthy county, in a liberal Democratic state, than they do elsewhere in the country. They do reflect his experience of Healthy Howard.

The incentives are impressively crafted, but — so far — they haven't gotten the county's uninsured to sign up in significant numbers."


A ver si Fearless puede convencer a los medicos del foro a que donen sus servicios pro-bono en el sistema socailistoide de salud... Estoy seguro que alguno se ofrecera para operarla del cerebro o coserle los labios y fundirle los dedos...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(Artaguito @ Jun 20 2009, 12:51 AM) [snapback]2865504[/snapback]
Esto es pura catedra del "class warfare". "Explotar a otros"? "Exprimir lo mas posible"?

El deseo de ganancia individual (o corporativo) es lo que hoy en dia, y no en 50 o 100 an~os, me permiten connectarme a todos ustedes 'wireless' y compartir ideas. No fue un burocrata bondadoso que organizo a cientificos empleados del gobierno a desarrollar la tecnologia digital, fue la expectativa y la promesa de LUCRO que motivo a esos individuos y corporaciones a ser mejores que la competencia.

El CEO de mi compan~ia escribio un term paper en la universidad delineando el "Overnight Delivery System" que usamos hoy. El maestro, un socialista lo mas seguro, le dio "C" por ser una idea imposible de implementar. El deseo de el, y de otros que empezaron FedEx con el en solo 35 an~os han revolucionado la industria y el se hizo multimillonario. A quien el explota, a mi que le vuelo los aviones de carga? Me deberia yo sentir miserable que mi labor lo esta haciendo a el mas rico?
El U.S. Mail nos paga a nosotros sobre un billon al an~o para que le volemos la carga a ellos. El gobierno se dio cuenta que nuestra compan~ia era mas eficiente que ellos (gracias a esa ambicion por ganancias) y hoy en dia los paquetes que tu recibes 'Express Mail' del Correo vinieron montados en un avion de FedEx.
Los capitalistas benefician a la sociedad cuando tienen entre ellos una competencia salvaje para ganarse los dolares de los consumidores de los productos. 'Windows' no existe gracias a un comite de gobierno, existe gracias a la implementacion comercial de un genio de computadoras. A quien exploto Bill Gates y Microsoft para ganarse sus billones?
En los carros, Toyota y Honda en los ultimos 15 an~os han estado sacando vehiculos que al publico les gusta y le han estado sacando el calzo a Detroit. Como mi viejo decia, "el que no se mueve...." asi que como camaron dormido, a Detroit se lo esta llevando la corriente, se creen que por ser carros americanos la gente los va a comprar aunque no tengan los 'perks' y los 'good looks' de los carros japoneses.
Julian: Uno cosa es ser capitalista y trabajar duro y otra cosa es ser avaricioso y tratar de ahorrar lo mas posible en el negocio porque eso es supuestamente honorable.

No Julian, lo que es honorable para el comerciante es coger parte de esas ganancias y arriesgarlas en inversion o expansion del negocio con el incentivo de aumentar esas ganancias. Lo que pasa es que ustedes se creen que para que uno gane el otro tiene que perder y no necesariamente ese es el caso. Para que entiendas como es la cosa primero tienes que aceptar que una economia capitalista crea nuevas riquezas donde antes no existian. Hasta que no aceptes ese principio te quedaras chillando goma en el mismo sitio hablando de "explotacion", "cero sum", y otras necedades socialistas.
J: Lo importante es que poco a poco salgamos de la jungla en donde cada animal se tiene que defender por si solo.


El defenderse por si solo hace mas fuerte y mas aguzados a los individuos. Las ovejas que tienen en una jaula bien protegida de los lobos nunca dejaran de ser ovejas. Yo prefiero la jungla a la jaula.



En cuanto al capitalismo: "You are preaching to the choir."

El ser humano necesita un incentivo para descollar.
Hablo sobre una modificación a la filosofía de "cada cual que se salve---no ayudamos a nadie."
En eso estoy en desacuerdo.

EEUU es el único país avanzado que no le garantiza cuidado médico a sus ciudadanos. Eso es una falla enorme.

Claro, cuesta mas, pero a veces hacer algo honorable cuesta mucho más.
¿Que sea mediocre? No importa, algo es algo.

Encima de eso los planes médicos privados no desaparecen.

Como dije: No entiendo este tipo de avaricia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(FearlessBox @ Jun 20 2009, 01:06 AM) [snapback]2865506[/snapback]
Julian, me alegro mucho que has cambiado. Y haz crecido.

Papotito disfruta de buena salud ahora....debido a muchos cambios en muchas maneras para mejorar la salud de todos.

Yautia murio Julian. Pero solo despues me di cuenta....que clase de VIDA vivio....

Ahora mas que nunca es importante saber que la medicina debe ser gratuita para TODOS y de alta calidad.

Yautia se manejo al hospital y diez dias despues....murio. Yo nunca en mi vida he manejado por una carretera en la oscuridad como una loca a 100 millas por hora...porque el estupidisimo aereopuerto se iba a tardar mas que la carretera.

Si cambiaste por leer y todo....pues ME HICISTES SUPER FELIZ HOMBRE!!

Cuidate siempre.....

Vida



Me había enterado de tu madre. Sin embargo tuvo larga vida llena de productividad. Esas son las cosas de la vida, te mando condolencias tardías. Mi padre murió cuando yó era bién joven. Lo recuerdo a diario y vive en mi pensamiento para siempre.

Mi cambio fue gradual y ayudado por las largas batallas contigo y el Eddie. Gracias.

¿Como está el niño?

En cuanto al "delivery de health care": Es un revolú tremendo y todo el mundo anda por hacer un billete. Es difícil ser paciente en EEUU, lo he visto a diario. En muchas ocasiones hacemos trabajo de gratis porque la burocracia es inflexible.

Necesitamos plán medico universal. El que lo quiera suplementar con plán privado lo puede hacer.

Los doctores que hacen primary care están desesperados y terminan haciendo un millón de cosas de gratis porque los pacientes no pueden pagar--------o porque la aseguradora no quiere pagar nada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE
Hasta la forista que si vive en Espana tiene un seguro privado... Si la medicina socializada es una chuleria tan grande, por que es que todavia se necesita cobertura medica privada?




Charlie esta correcto....mis amistades de Inglaterra me dicen lo mismo.. La salud publica es una mierda y la privada es la mejor. Que la salud publica tiene al pais jodio de taxes altos y un costo de vida de madre.



wow!! Nadie va a responder de los reportes que puse.......Julian read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(Julián @ Jun 20 2009, 09:19 AM) [snapback]2865524[/snapback]
En cuanto al capitalismo: "You are preaching to the choir."

El ser humano necesita un incentivo para descollar.
Hablo sobre una modificación a la filosofía de "cada cual que se salve---no ayudamos a nadie."
En eso estoy en desacuerdo.

EEUU es el único país avanzado que no le garantiza cuidado médico a sus ciudadanos. Eso es una falla enorme.

Claro, cuesta mas, pero a veces hacer algo honorable cuesta mucho más.
¿Que sea mediocre? No importa, algo es algo.

Encima de eso los planes médicos privados no desaparecen.

Como dije: No entiendo este tipo de avaricia.




Hablo sobre una modificación a la filosofía de "cada cual que se salve---no ayudamos a nadie."

El motor de innovacion capitalista directa o indirectamente ayuda a todos. Lee el articulo anterior sobre las farmaceuticas y compan~ias medicas americanas lo que invierten y producen.


EEUU es el único país avanzado que no le garantiza cuidado médico a sus ciudadanos. Eso es una falla enorme.

Si tu eres indigente y vas a cualquier salon de emergencia en EEUU te tienen que atender. Oh, lo que tu quieres es transplantes de corazon a todos los que lo necesiten? Eso tampoco te lo dan en sistemas socializados.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Arta:


Its mind boggling como la gente habla sin datos......EEUU tiene las mejores facilidades medicas, las mejores universidades medicas y el pais que mas invierte en innovaciones en el mundo que todo el planeta se beneficia gracias al sistema que tenemos que tenemos ese lujo de invertir $$$$$$$ y pagar mejor que cualquier pais mundial.


Europa como tiene medicina socializada y el gobierno lo tiene que pagar todo y poner caps y controlar los costos pues ellos buscan la manera de no gastar y cortar fondos que a lo largo mata vidas.


Yo puse 2 reportes que nadie aqui quiere debatir........la verdad duele....ahora que digan que EEUU no son tan avanzados como Europa cuando Europa se beneficia del sistema de EEUU sin que ellos pagar ni invertir en la medicina como EEUU.


Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
United States spends almost twice as much per capita on medical care vis-a-vis many European countries yet we have a lower life expectancy rate:



...and a higher infant mortality rate:



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
QUOTE(Artaguito @ Jun 20 2009, 11:26 AM) [snapback]2865537[/snapback]
Hablo sobre una modificación a la filosofía de "cada cual que se salve---no ayudamos a nadie."

El motor de innovacion capitalista directa o indirectamente ayuda a todos. Lee el articulo anterior sobre las farmaceuticas y compaias medicas americanas lo que invierten y producen.
EEUU es el único país avanzado que no le garantiza cuidado médico a sus ciudadanos. Eso es una falla enorme.

Si tu eres indigente y vas a cualquier salon de emergencia en EEUU te tienen que atender. Oh, lo que tu quieres es transplantes de corazon a todos los que lo necesiten? Eso tampoco te lo dan en sistemas socializados.


Por favor no sigas usando "dichos capitalistas". Estoy de acuerdo con el capitalismo. Mas capitalista que yó no hay nadie. Preguntale a Fearless.

No digo que dejemos el capitalismo atrás. Solo digo que necesitamos un cambio de conciencia en donde se entiende que los ciudadanos de un país tienen el privilegio de recibir atención médica sin tener que ser examinados para ver si son indigentes.

No discuto que la ralea le chupa al gobierno y que también reciben atención médica de gratis.

Digo que debe haber atención médica gratis para todos los ciudadanos. Es costoso, pero es lo moralmente correcto. Piensa en el GI Bill despues de la 2da guerra mundial. Mi padre no era indigente y se hizo abogado con ese GI BIll.

¿Que haces si tienes un hijo de 25 años que de momento se queda sin trabajo y por casulidad se enferma seriamente "between jobs"? Entonces tratas de comprar un seguro médico para tu hijo y te dicen que el paciente tiene una condición médica de antemano y el seguro no te lo venden.

Entonces buscas ese plan gratis para los indigentes y te dicen que no cualifica porque no es suficientemente pobre. Y si lo atienden de gratis lo tratan como mielda por ser indigente.

Pol favol. Este país necesita un sistema en donde culaquier ciudadano tenga derecho a un plan por el solo hecho de ser ciudadano. Esto es básico en toda sociedad avanzada.

El hecho de que EEUU tenga mas dinero que Francia, España, o Inglaterra no quiere decir que tenga mas madurez como nación. La grán mayoria de los americanos fuera de las ciudadaes son unos "rednecks" bastante ignorantes.

Como dije hace un par de días. El avance tecnológico le brindará servicios médicos a todos de una manera eficiente y barata. Claro, hay que esperar, pero por algún sitio se comienza. Edited by Julián

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Current health care system is like flushing $$$$$$ down the toilet...according to a study by the accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers:

***************************************

The price of excess: Identifying waste in healthcare spending
Print-friendly version
Email to a colleague

Download The price of excess: Identifying waste in healthcare spending (471kb)

To appropriately address waste in health spending, health industry leaders, policymakers and consumers must work together on system-wide goals and incentives. In April 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers hosted the 180° Health Forum in Washington D.C., bringing together representatives of government, regulatory bodies and the nation’s largest hospitals and health systems, health insurers, pharmaceutical and life sciences companies to seek new, collaborative approaches to solving some of the health system’s most intractable problems.

These challenges — how to focus on prevention and wellness, how to drive greater quality and value into our healthcare system and how to ensure that our health system is resilient in the face of disaster — cut across traditional boundaries and requires that we think about our health system in new ways and consider innovative solutions.

As part of its preparation for the 180° Health Forum, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute (HRI) interviewed more than 20 participants, reviewed more than 35 studies about waste and inefficiency in healthcare and surveyed 1,000 consumers to understand the public’s perception of waste and inefficiency in the system. From that research came The price of excess: Identifying waste in healthcare spending.

Key Findings

Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending. Defensive medicine, such as redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, was identified as the biggest area of excess, followed by inefficient healthcare administration and the cost of care necessitated by conditions such as obesity, which can be considered preventable by lifestyle changes. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ paper classified health system inefficiencies into three “wastebaskets” that are driving up costs:

Behavioral where individual behaviors are shown to lead to health problems, and have potential opportunities for earlier, non-medical interventions. (The fat hamburger brains... grease-eating fiends like Hush Bimbaugh)

Clinical where medical care itself is considered inappropriate, entailing overuse, misuse or under-use of particular interventions, missed opportunities for earlier interventions, and overt errors leading to quality problems for the patient, plus cost and rework.

Operational where administrative or other business processes appear to add costs without creating value.

When added together, the opportunities for eliminating wasteful spending add up to as much as $1.2 trillion. The impact of issues such as non-adherence to medical advice and prescriptions, alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity are exponential, and fall into all three baskets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Para hacer mas balanceado.

Infant Mortality Rate High in U.S.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006



CHICAGO — America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.

Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.

"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.

The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.

"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
Related


o Infant Deaths Down, but Racial Gap Persists
o Cheap Simple Care Could Save Millions of Infants
o Leap in U.S. Infant Mortality Due to Low Birth Weight

The Save the Children report, released Monday, comes just a week after publication of another report humbling to the American health care system. That study showed that white, middle-aged Americans are far less healthy than their peers in England, despite U.S. health care spending that is double that in England.

In the analysis of global infant mortality, Japan had the lowest newborn death rate, 1.8 per 1,000 and four countries tied for second place with 2 per 1,000 — the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland and Norway.

Still, it's the impoverished nations that feel the full brunt of infant mortality, since they account for 99 percent of the 4 million annual deaths of babies in their first month. Only about 16,000 of those are in the United States, according to Save the Children.

The highest rates globally were in Africa and South Asia. With a newborn death rate of 65 out of 1,000 live births, Liberia ranked the worst.

In the United States, researchers noted that the population is more racially and economically diverse than many other industrialized countries, making it more challenging to provide culturally appropriate health care.

About half a million U.S. babies are born prematurely each year, data show. African-American babies are twice as likely as white infants to be premature, to have a low birth weight, and to die at birth, according to Save the Children.


The researchers also said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves likely contribute to the poor U.S. rankings. Those factors can lead to poor health care before and during pregnancy, increasing risks for premature births and low birth weight, which are the leading causes of newborn death in industrialized countries. Infections are the main culprit in developing nations, the report said.

Other possible factors in the U.S. include teen pregnancies and obesity rates, which both disproportionately affect African-American women and also increase risk for premature births and low birth weights.

In past reports by Save the Children — released ahead of Mother's Day — U.S. mothers' well-being has consistently ranked far ahead of those in developing countries but poorly among industrialized nations. This year the United States tied for last place with the United Kingdom on indicators including mortality risks and contraception use.

While the gaps for infants and mothers contrast sharply with the nation's image as a world leader, Emory University health policy expert Kenneth Thorpe said the numbers are not surprising.

"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well," Thorpe said. "What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Es que los capitalistas genuinos a la Ayn Rand y Artaguito NO TIENEN CORAZÓN NI MORAL.

Ambas son incompatibles con la creencia ideológica en un capitalismo laissez-faire salvaje y a rajatabla donde a todos se le da oportunidad, y después es "sálvese quien pueda". El que salga a flote que respire, y el que se hunda que se ahogue (y no le cojas pena porque eso es de "socialistas").

Tan pronto tienes un poquitín de empatía y quieres ayudar a los menos afortunados TIENES QUE IMPLEMENTAR Y MEZCLAR MEDIDAS SOCIALISTAS en tu capitalismo.

Si no terminas como Andrew Ryan y Rapture en "BioShock"

[YouTube]Lmw78t8NgIE[/YouTube] Edited by Capicu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
El sistema de EEUU y el sistema de Europa tiene sus ventajas y desventajas.....ningun sistema es perfecto.

Yo se que el sistema de Europa no va a funcionar en EEUU por las razones que dije y los 2 reportes que puse.

Hasta el plan de Obama no es el de Europa...hasta el sabe que eso no va a funcionar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0