CSN Login
Members Online: 6

You are here

Something we ALL have in common.

PhillieG's picture
Posts: 4912
Joined: May 2005

Good segment on 60 Minutes tonight IMO.
Sure to raise some various points of view.
Things have been too calm here...

idlehunters's picture
Posts: 1792
Joined: Apr 2009

wow phil..... that was intense...... thanks for such an informative segment... now what? Is the government going to start refusing us treatments if a doctor says we only have 2 months to live??? who knows.....


PGLGreg's picture
Posts: 741
Joined: Jul 2006

Thanks for the reference. I didn't agree with much of the segment (which was obviously editorializing, not reporting). The view that health care costs threaten to "bankrupt the country", repeated at least three times, reflects an understanding of economics, I think, even more primitive than my own. All the money that is collected from insurance premiums and taxes and goes to pay for treatment isn't just lost to us down some black hole. Doctors and nurses and many others in the industry get paid for their services, they buy food, houses, supporting those who supply those, and pay taxes themselves, and the money just circulates around. Why should the country go bankrupt? If the money taken in is insufficient to pay for health services, we just need to adjust the flows so more money comes in --- raise premiums and taxes. If we as a society decide that health care is more important to us than it was formerly, we will be willing to pay more for it, and what is wrong with making that decision? What's the big problem?


KATE58's picture
Posts: 300
Joined: Nov 2009

the same things were said when they implemented medicare and medicaid in the early
sixtys',it did not bankrupt the country and there were no death squads trying to kill grandma.
i am on ss disabilty and medicare,because after 2 surgerys and a two month stay in hospital,
my insurance co wrote me a letter stating they would no longer pay my bills as i had reached
my 'LIFETIME LIMIT' If not for medicare disabilty( A GOVERNMENT INS)(and no i'm not in my sixtys) I would probably be dead by now.I have received better health care than on my regular insurance who constantly turned down paying for certain drugs because they wanted me to take something CHEAPER even if it did not work as well.and balked at paying for pet/ct scans because they thought a chest xray would do.I've never been turned down on anything from medicare and i was initially given 3 months to live.And since this subject drives me nuts ( could you tell?)this will probably be the last time i comment on the subject,altho i will read what anyone else posts
i don't begrudge anyone their own opinion.if we agree fine,if not,ok counter and move on.
P.S.I worked all my life since i was 15 and paid into social security every paycheck.I have discussed with my doctor my end of life choices I will be kept pain free, sedated and hydrated,- no tubes, machines or resusitations.she said a lot of patients want to be in icu hooked up to machines.who am I to tell them they are wrong?its a personel choice.

John23's picture
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Kate -
(and Greg)

Thank you for adding your comments!

And thank you Phil. for giving that a "heads up"!

As Kate mentioned, this entire "sky is falling" mantra wasn't any different
in '65 when Medicare was started. Yet, Medicare persevered.

In 1997, there was a bunch of noise about not needing mammograms
for those under 50. We see that again today, along with a new one,
about not needing a colonoscopy too early in life.

While those findings may make good sense in the context they
were found (but not the manner they were reported), I found it
very interesting to finally take note that in 1997 Bill Clinton was
President and the push for health care reform was big news.

And then as it is now, this "news report" that so many find so
disturbing, is again brought into the headlines. And of course,
it all is pointed to those that desire healthcare reform. The news
makes it appear that we will lose the benefits of proactive testing
if we continue to stand behind those that are attempting to pass
healthcare legislation.

It worked in '97, but we should learn from that, and not permit
ourselves or others from being fooled again.

(I think that's a "WHO" lyric from the 60s)

Enough is enough. I made the mistake of voting for a bush four
times in history, and each time ended in a disaster.

This time I voted for a change. I would like to see that happen
while I am still alive to see it. This country deserves better than
what we've been accepting. It's about time we work towards using
our taxes for ourselves, rather than the big corporations and

It's not "socialism", it's being practical.


(is it hot in here?)

PhillieG's picture
Posts: 4912
Joined: May 2005

I had the unpleasant experience of watching my father die a slow death from complications of a stroke because the doctors were able to "keep him alive" even though we expressed that we did not want any heroics done. They did it (it seemed) because they could. Finally we got him into a nursing home where he passed away within a few days but he wasn't hooked up to every conceivable device.
When the time comes to go, it's time to go.
"Elizabeth, this is the big one!"

PS: The Who also said "I hope I die before I get old"

Jimbob-'s picture
Posts: 50
Joined: Jan 2008

I agree with everyone. We need to revamp our Health Care System.

Difference between now and the sixties is that in the sixties almost everyone paid some income tax, today only about 50% of the people are paying income tax.

So lets start out by changing our confiscatory Tax Code. Lets go to a Flat Rate where everyone pays a percentage of what they earn, and I bet we will have enough to support a much better system.....

Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

predicted by now more people would be retired and be supported by a smaller than ever working population. This will be even worse as this was before effects of current economic mess, global warming,competition from China, India and others but primarily the onset of baby boomer retirements. The health care system as we currently know it will be bankrupt soon if something doesn;t give......Steve

KATE58's picture
Posts: 300
Joined: Nov 2009

Yet,the pharmicutical companies sell drugs to Canada for half what americans have to pay,because of deals they made with their government,that they won't give to our own government because it will cut into their huge profits!
I know many people over retirement age still working full time because they can't afford to retire
We come in 26th in the world in healthcare,we have the highest costs and the highest incidence
of preventable disese (ie; diabetes,hypertension, heart disese, obesity )and no one, NOT ONE PERSON,in any other country, has ever gone bankrupt or lost their house or property due to medical bills.The people against healthcare reform should try on my shoes.

PhillieG's picture
Posts: 4912
Joined: May 2005

It's such a complex issue. Reform need to be done. Both sides make good points, both sides spread fear and false statements. If ever there really was a time for bipartisan co-operation, now is it. There are some aspects of the proposed plan I like and others I don't. It's not black and white at all. There is way too much waste in the system though. Pharmaceutical companies make a bundle. Sure there's R&D but they also try to shove meds for everything (including depression) down our throats yet more herbal remedies are not explored because they (big pharm) can't monopolize them. (i.e pot)
I wish there was a simple answer or even simple questions to answer.

As far as the segment on 60 Minutes goes I do think there are times when it's time to go but they won't let people die with dignity. The costs involved with that are astronomical. Should a person who abused their body and is very old get preference over someone who is young and needs the same organ?

I think if there were more "exchanging of the shoes" more people would understand the human side of this and not just $$$.


Posts: 62
Joined: Jun 2009

How disgusting is it that in the recent senate vote on discussing the health initiative all the Republicans voted against it while there were no opposing votes from the Democrats. Why does congress have to make it a political issue every time?

It would be great if somehow unbiased politicians could get into office with no lobbying influence upon them. Never happen though.

PGLGreg's picture
Posts: 741
Joined: Jul 2006

It's not always made a political issue. The party leadership decides which votes should be party line. It's a strategical calculation. Would congress work better with no party discipline at all? Lobbies let constituents and others affected by legislation give feedback to their senators and representatives. Would congress give better representation without lobbies?


PhillieG's picture
Posts: 4912
Joined: May 2005

I'm afraid that is the bottom line, it's the


more than an political issue.
Greg, make a good point. "Would congress give better representation without lobbies?"
I think the answer is YE$.

geotina's picture
Posts: 2122
Joined: Oct 2009

Jimbob and Kate58 - from your lips to God's ears (Obama's ears also)

Subscribe to Comments for "Something we ALL have in common."