Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/index.php)
-   The Mud Box (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The health care debate (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74637)

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 03:34 PM

Maybe they got it from these people, I don't know.

No doubt it is a good question. I would get in touch with the Concord Group, the people that did the surveys from the article Art made reference to and ask them.

Sounds like a good homework assignment for you. I'm curious myself. The question is, even if they told you, would you believe them?


HS345 06-17-2009 04:35 PM

Ben, are you asking me if I would believe cancer survival rate data from an island nation, ruled by a communist dictatorship, that cannot even keep fish available for it's people?

Probably not.

From where I sit, that places the USA in first place.

sandbagger 06-17-2009 05:00 PM

and on top of that, the "data" is provided by the United Nations? :rofl:

HS345 06-17-2009 07:06 PM

Astonishing, but not surprising
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was unable to name one country where a single-payer health care system works.

e3 06-17-2009 07:16 PM

reading this after tuning out for a few days,it is clear...It will never be solved, if left open to discussion...LEAD ,FOLLOW ,GET OUT OF THE WAY!!

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 07:25 PM

Eric, I agree. We complain how government can't solve any problems and yet we are not a bunch of government beuracrats and we can't even come up with a solution.

The best thing we can come up with is leave it the way it is.

I just wish the insurance companies would stop with these pre-existing exclusions so if and when I decide to offer health insurance as part of my insurance business people might actually have a reason to purchase it.

HS345 06-17-2009 07:47 PM

Guys, there have been solutions offered here. Have you not been paying attention? :scratch:

Why do you have a problem with people pointing out what we consider flaws, and downright dangerous portions of the plan being laid out by Washington? Is that not what we pay our congress to do? Represent us. If that is true, shouldn't we be free to voice our opinions about what they are preparing to foist upon us?

The title of this thread is "The health care debate", not, "Lead, follow, get outta the way". ;)

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 08:02 PM

Greg, name some solutions that have been offered here where there has been some kind of unanimous agreement or are you going to give the typical response of "I said solutions have been offered but I never said there was unanimous agreement".

I don't have a problem pointing out the flaws, I was just focusing more on solutions and a plan that just might work, not that it matters. Like even if we had a good plan or someone came up with one DC would actually follow through with it.......

You are right about the title of the thread, it is a debate so to put heads together and think about an idea that just might work would be silly anyway.

You should come over to the insurance forum one day, they would love you. You would fit right in. They love to debate and they never solve anything.

HS345 06-17-2009 08:10 PM

Huh? Why would there, or more importantly, why should there be unanimous agreement?

I don't think I'll waste my time, and yours, listing solutions that have been offered Ben, you obviously aren't interested in solutions. Especially if you're waiting for "unanimous agreement", because that will never happen.

Haaaay, I get it, yer pullin' my leg. :yeah: Good one. :tup2:

Man, I sure took the bait on that one. :fish2:

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 09:55 PM

10 ways to beat the rising costs of health care
Even though this is the DEBATE thread as pointed out earlier I still thought I would put this article in here for some who would like some pointers or solutions.


Tymeless 06-17-2009 09:58 PM

Insurance companies set their rates based on cost and risk. It’s too bad that they would rather settle a frivolous lawsuit out of court because the fear of losing would cost them even more. I know the left is always looking at the right as evil, uncompassionate, and greedy but if some these ridiculous law suits were thrown out, the doctors would be able to keep more of their earnings and therefore lower the fees they charge. Fix the legal system and all prices will go down. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer last year and thank god we were able to get a second and third opinion prior to making our decision. Had the government been in charge of her health care and was as efficient as most agencies in Washington are, we would have been on a waiting list and had to settle for the first opinion which by the way was a full mastectomy. After getting the third opinion, she was able to keep her breasts and right now is in remission. Thank God America has the best health care in the world and by the way the world should be thankful we do. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.

Crestone Tile 06-17-2009 10:06 PM


Originally Posted by tymeless
Thank God America has the best health care in the world

:lol1: :rofl:

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 10:13 PM

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
You can Google this and the list pretty much always comes up the same no matter which organization is compiling the data.


Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

HS345 06-17-2009 10:25 PM

That's good advice Ben.

The best part about it is that it can all be done without spending a trillion and a half dollars of tax payer money.

e3 06-18-2009 07:21 AM

we sure wouldnt want to spend a trillion and a half dollar's on health care when we can spend it on a war instead !!!
How about just a consensus vote ..When this is all done it will be intresting to see what as a group you propose ..its starting to remind me of a Tile Council Handbook meeting..
a bunch of Co., including competitors working together to come out with something usable..Might not be perfect but...

jgleason 06-18-2009 07:33 AM

Sorry folks, I just don't see any justification for federal involvement regarding health care or health insurance.

Tymeless 06-18-2009 08:42 AM

The fundamental difference between the two opinions is one group truly believes the federal government can take care of the masses and the other group knows from how well they have managed every other entitlement, it will only push the national deficit higher and the added bureaucracy will only drive the capitalist away from the industry. Let’s fix the other entitlement messes before we take on this one. Please people use common sense for once in your life. You as tile setters dealing with fly by night, inexperienced installers as competition in your industry should know, “You get what you pay for”.:bonk:

e3 06-18-2009 09:29 AM

When the Med. Co. and the Insurance Co. can stick someone with a $1000. (or what ever) bill per month,and they can'nt pay for it?? WHO PICKS UP THE TAB?? The Med. Co. and the insurance Co.dont want to change anything.We the tax pay'ers are paying the bill ,one way or another..I dont have the answer ,but maybe we do have the money,and we're all paying allready, just calling it some thing different.

LadyGodiva 06-18-2009 09:33 AM

Eric is right. Why not put all our money into more wars? That would make a lot of folks mighty happy, not so?

Now for some peace and tranquility. I give you paradise!!!


Definitely on my bucket list.

ob1kanobee 06-18-2009 09:36 AM

I follow what you are saying and I know what you mean. The problem is our government is too corrupt to fix the problem to benefit the American people.

LadyGodiva 06-18-2009 09:39 AM

Kyle, we have the best health care in the world? You've got to be kidding me! Is that because YOU have health care? Tell that to the millions of Americans without healthcare please. Tell that to the millions of Americans who PAY for healthcare but are then told which procedures are not covered and what their deductible is.

We have to pay a $1,500 deductible EACH in my family, BEFORE those #$%&* start covering us, and then we have to pay very high deductibles on prescription drugs, and office visits. I just heard that they will not cover certain tests as well. What a wonderful system we've got here.

Now my sibling who lives in Germany will never return to this country because of our healthcare system, and neither will the hundreds of Americans who live in other countries. You only have to do searches online to read about these Americans and their opinion on OUR wonderful healthcare system.

Tymeless 06-18-2009 11:34 AM


I never said the system was perfect. What I am saying is our government wastes so much tax payer money already that by adding health care to the list of entitlements, politicians on both sides of the isle will have another way to waste more. As for the bit on war believe me I am not fan of it but sometimes our choices are limited if we care about human rights world wide. We could ignore the rest of the world and maybe we should. If we would have done that in the past, your son would have to speak Russian to get his German health care. I'm sure if health insurance was a top priority among most Americans they would put it up front over the non essentials they spend their money on, I do and match half of the cost my employees pay. Just my right wing conservative opinion for what that’s worth.

sandbagger 06-18-2009 05:16 PM

A couple of folks here have asked why we have to bring politics into the mix, but how can you not? This debate is really much more basic than "healthcare." It is about more government or less government. It is about whether individuals are capable of making decision for themselves, and - here's the big one - whether those individuals should suffer the consequences of bad decisions. The answers to these questions are the essence of the Liberal versus Conservative debate.

For example - To a Conservative the 30-yr old grocery bagger who dropped out of high school (and never went back) simply made a bad decision. But to a Liberal the dropout is a "victim," forced out of high school by factors completely beyond his control. In LiberaLand the victim then becomes a ward of the state and is thus granted full rights and entitlement to the redistributed wealth of those suckers who stayed in school and committed to making a career.

Bill Clinton summed it up nicely when he rejected the suggestion of tax cuts - "You might not spend it in the right place." This thinking obviously extends to healthcare, where the ONLY solution proposed by the Left is Big Government! Why is that? Can someone please tell me, Why is the Left so hard over against ANY suggestion that does not give over control of healthcare to the government? :scratch:

HS345 06-18-2009 05:21 PM


Originally Posted by Art
Why is the Left so hard over against ANY suggestion that does not give over control of healthcare to the government?

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer to that one Art, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. :sick:

bathroomremodeler 06-18-2009 05:31 PM

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

We already have good proof of how a government run health care system will work. Simply look at Medicare. This year, more benefits will be paid out, than income brought in. This is pretty amazing when you think every single worker is paying … while only seniors are using it.

Not only this, but estimates are that in 8 years … Medicare will be bankrupt.
I believe one strong reason national health care debate is in full swing … is that the single-payer plan … will be used to bailout Medicare … at least for a short time. It is not coming up, to “help everyone”, but instead … to cover up all the bad decisions that the government has made on this (Medicare) health plan.

Since when, has living pain free, become a right?

We all would enjoy having $2500 a month in medication only cost us $600 a month. That’s Medicare thinking.

After the national health care plan goes into effect, what next? A national utility plan? After all, it should be everyone’s right to live in a 70 degree living environment. Pain Free. Discomfort Free.

Norman Mattoon Thomas, was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He said;

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”?

He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.”

I don’t want to be like Canada, France or Germany … I want to be like the old America (but with the same high tech stuff as now). Like 1787 to 1913, when there was no income tax (except temporarily for the Civil War) and we called ourselves a Republic … and acted more like a Republic.

I agree with Art. The national health care debate is about “health”. But it also is about moving even further away from being a Republic and moving into Socialism.

e3 06-18-2009 06:00 PM

What is the mark up or profit on meds.?? That might be a start.We the people ,though the Gov pay ,for much of the research ,then pay though the arse for the drug ....
The Insurance Co.are happy to take are money but dont ever make a claim.You'll be out the door on your arse with no where to turn..Being high risk and all!

jgleason 06-18-2009 06:10 PM

Although this John Stossel article is from 2007 it is still a very good summary of the issue. I find it difficult to disagree with anything in it...


HS345 06-18-2009 06:27 PM


Originally Posted by Eric
We the people ,though the Gov pay ,for much of the research

Where did you get that idea Eric? It is simply not true.

Do you have any idea how much it costs in R&D to bring a new drug to market in this country? Take a guess.

e3 06-18-2009 07:28 PM

I thought it was subsidized.
R&D is -alot
So what is the % of margin from cost...
A $.03 cent pill sells for what...$3.00 ???--asking??
I dont have the answers,but I do know the SOMETHING needs to be done..I'm open.

HS345 06-18-2009 07:55 PM

Private drug research by big pharma is not government subsidized, in fact, the opposite is true. Much of the cost associated with bringing a new drug to market is navigating the bureaucratic BS.

The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is well over a billion dollars. Furthermore, many drugs never even make it to the marketplace, making investment in new drug development very risky, not only from a financial standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. The potential for big profits also exists, which is the incentive for these companies to produce the life saving drugs we all benefit from.

What do you think will happen when that incentive is removed?

Were you aware that big pharma also offers a lot of prescription assistance for people who cannot afford their meds?

I know a lot of people like to portray big pharma as evil, and I'm sure the picture isn't entirely rosy, but there are two sides to every story.

sandbagger 06-18-2009 09:34 PM


The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is well over a billion dollars.
BINGO! The number is worth repeating. $1 Billion.

And that doesn't even count what it costs to defend the inevitable lawsuits. That is also why the US grants exclusive patent rights and prohibits generics of new drugs for what, 7 years? So for 7 years the Mercks will have to make hay to recoup those costs. The problem is that our friends abroad (and up north) don't respect those patents - so Americans pay all the R&D costs while everyone abroad buys generics (or forces the Mercks to accept the generic pricing).

It's a great system, isn't it? So you have ask, how is a government takeover going to make it better? :scratch:

ob1kanobee 06-18-2009 10:24 PM

A bottle of Tylenol cost over $100 from the hospital and, yes, that’s the same bottle of Tylenol that goes for about $3 at your local pharmacy. :moon:

jgleason 06-18-2009 10:34 PM

Don't buy your Tylenol from the hospital then Ben. :D

ob1kanobee 06-18-2009 10:40 PM

I won't.
If I need an anesthesiologist I'll just bring a bottle of Jack Daniels or have someone hit me over the head with a hammer.

The band-aides are expensive too! They want $10 to $30 bucks for those. Just paint some 9235 and roll some felt on that cut.

All because a bunch of schmucks don't have health insurance.

Tymeless 06-18-2009 10:43 PM

The cost of hospital Tylenol may be a direct result of providing emergency room care to people who can't or won't pay for it. Hmmm.....maybe my health insurance is paying for the rest of the cost. :scratch:

sandbagger 06-18-2009 11:34 PM

or maybe it's the cost of the paperwork required by the government bureaucracy? :shrug:

you may recall the big stink a few years ago about the $600 hammers the military was buying. What they didn't tell you was that the hammers had to be purchased through the Defense Acquisition System. It was against all the rules to just go to Sears and buy a friggin' hammer. :bang:

I suspect your Tylenol is today's $600 hammer.

Aquera 06-19-2009 01:32 AM

I know pharm-companies make a LOT of money, they're certainly doing a lot better then the average family these days - I know that in Europe, where they have the best health care, they are still doing a R&D and inventing drugs, just like in the US. I also know that they do things differently - there are things that are done or used there on a regular basis that are not practiced here because they're not "proven" - at the end of the day, they're systems are better and the people there live longer, are healthier. My point being, I don't think we need to feel sorry for drug companies for a second...

also another thing about the Canadian system - we're basically a echo of the USA in that whatever is approved there, is approved here soon after (its pathetic). There are several things that are done in Europe that are cheaper and better, yet we don't do them here, I'm guessing because of the conflict it would cause with the American drug companies.. they don't want to loose us as customers. The aging baby boomers are about to totally screw our system bad, we're also on the verge of something terrible too, unless we can do things cheaper and better...

HS345 06-19-2009 06:02 AM

Do you really believe that hospital costs are sky high just because a "bunch of schmucks" don't have health insurance? That's a little simplistic, don't you think? :rolleyes: Do you also believe hospital costs will be lower when the government runs them? C'mon man, you gotta be freakin' kidding me.

The Senate couldn't even run their own cafeteria without losing millions. And you want these people in charge of your health care? :wtf: Why? No, seriously, can you please tell me exactly why you want them in charge of this?

What is wrong with pharmaceutical companies making a profit? Would you prefer they lose money? Would you prefer the thousands of people they employ were out of a job?


Originally Posted by Mike
I know that in Europe, where they have the best health care, they are still doing a R&D and inventing drugs, just like in the US.

Really? Could you name some names please? I mean, specific drugs that have come out of Europe.


Originally Posted by Mike
there are things that are done or used there on a regular basis that are not practiced here because they're not "proven"

I don't know if that's true, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that it is. What would you say the reason for that is?

e3 06-19-2009 08:05 AM

As some of you know my older Brother (53) just died (funeral today)after a long battle.
I have know idea how much money he owe's for his care.He was single with no insurance.
My guess (maybe wrong) is that you all are going to help pay the bill.Perhaps if the meds were $3.00 for the tylenol instead of $100. ect. ect. ect. It wouldnt cost YOU all so much.. People with insurance get better prices then those with out ,do to "bargining power". Ok, but should the un-insured have to make up the difference?? Do hospitals jack up the price in cases cases like this? Again I dont have the answers only see the problem.No one wants more taxes or GOV.,but many NEED help.And perhaps helping them would help us.Hell it could be us..

HS345 06-19-2009 08:09 AM

I'm sorry about your brother Eric, you have my deepest sympathies. :(

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC