A question for the old goodjers...

Well I am now positive that malor is white....need to add that to his file...

But on the topic at hand, hmm when I was young sexually transmitted diseases were not generally fatal.
People shopped at malls.
People went to arcades to play the latest video games
People didn't access the internet to feed their delusions.
Summer school was offer to kids that wanted to go, not just those that had to go. (I got to talk my world politics group (it was some weird coutnry simulator type deal where groups "ran a country" each) into nuking the rest of the world, it was great fun.
People were still afraid on the "Communists"
Germany was 2 different coutnries.
Terrorists were an annoyance for the most part.
Telephone calls cost half or less what they do today (and the pay telephones were remarkably easy to force to cough up their internal coin reserves...)
Dominos guaranteed your pizza in less than a half hour (which sucked cause they were a block away from my house, I never got a free pizza)

I'm a product of the seventies and am in my mid thirties...Hmm, what do I remember...

Remote controls with two buttons to change all 4 TV stations; no cable (also color television was optional...Black and white could easily be converted by sliding a colorful plastic sheet over the screen during your favorite show).

The invention of the microwave"…and then shortly after the invention of Pacemaker warning labels

The word "Honkie" was an insult and not nearly as funny.

They're were only Chuck Taylor's; no Nike's

American companies produced quality products IN AMERICA, not China and India

Detroit was a happening city not a depressed ghost town

If you traveled to a foreign country you would be most likely respected as an American not despised and beheaded.

You could dial 0 on your rotary to call you local telephone operator and get a needed number"…

Your local telephone operator was exactly that "local"; not a guy name Manish taking the call somewhere southeast of Bangladesh.

And for the young Republicans"…There was no such thing as High Fructose Corn Syrup 30 years ago, and it wasn't injected into almost everything we eat and drink. Before Reagan, we had sugar"…American farmers weren't indirectly subsidized by the government to make our kids fat and unhealthy like they are today"…Oh well, I guess less of an older population 50 years from now will help fix Social Security though"…

Speak ye not ill of corn, heathen!

wordsmythe wrote:

Speak ye not ill of corn, heathen!

West of the wind? Dekalb perhaps?

ChronicNecrosis wrote:

Dekalb perhaps?

I have friends from there. They are large and quick to anger.

Farscry wrote:

I remember when most anyone could afford healthcare, even medicine, with basic medical insurance that was accessible to almost everyone who was working. This isn't so much me personally, but remembering with my parents.

Now we've progressed to the point where medical insurance is a veritable minefield of incomprehensible legalese, and not only is it enough of a headache getting coverage, you're not even guaranteed that medical insurance is actually going to ensure coverage for all your medical problems.

[edit]For reference, I'm 30 this year. Yes, still pretty young, but old enough to remember the differences between then and now.

I'd argue that more government intervention into the health industry is part of the reason for rising costs, along with lawsuits.

Being ancient (41) I have a foggy recollection of some guy named Nixon, . I remember Ford, Jimma Carter and the clusterfrick that we called the "hostage crisis". I remember Bicentennial parades and gas being $.73 per gallon. I also recall the tidal wave of nationalism that was produced by the Reagan administration.

I think it's difficult for anyone to definitively assess where we are as a nation and where we are as a people. Most of us weren't alive for the Vietnam war so it's hard to draw a modern day comparison. We can't ignore that there is a massive variance in opinion as a result of just growing older. When you're young the world seems to be massive, mysterious and in some ways magical. You brush against the realities crime, death and taxes but you're still afforded the luxury of believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

With that said, I do believe the world has become a whole lot harsher. There is a lot of discussion about diversity and tolerance but there appears to be a fair amount of anger about the changes that diversity brings. One thing that does seem apparent to me is that we seem to be very divided as a nation. Personally, I think the current administration their "war" is a big part of the problem. It's divided our nation in a way that I've never experienced. In my opinion, it may go down in history as the worst in American history. The really scary part is that the dufuscrats that are poised to replace them might be as bad or worse.

What this nation is screaming for is leadership and integrity....two things the current parties don't seem capable of providing.

Ulairi wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I remember when most anyone could afford healthcare, even medicine, with basic medical insurance that was accessible to almost everyone who was working. This isn't so much me personally, but remembering with my parents.

Now we've progressed to the point where medical insurance is a veritable minefield of incomprehensible legalese, and not only is it enough of a headache getting coverage, you're not even guaranteed that medical insurance is actually going to ensure coverage for all your medical problems.

[edit]For reference, I'm 30 this year. Yes, still pretty young, but old enough to remember the differences between then and now.

I'd argue that more government intervention into the health industry is part of the reason for rising costs, along with lawsuits.

Liability, liability, liability and corporate greed are the reasons the healthcare industry is where it is. The bizzare irony is that we are capable of providing the best medical care in the world....but only to those who can afford it.

If you really want to see what's going on in healthcare, look at the balance sheets of the insurers.

I think America's economy is hollowing out at an unprecedented rate. When the best solution a consulting firm can give is to move product design, manufacturing and operations overseas to avoid the high cost of American workers, there is a storm a-brewing. There comes a point when almost nothing is left. When corporations spin us that our workers are not educated enough, just to humble our spirit into one of outsourcing acceptance, we are being prepared.

Our economy is bleeding money, whether its overseas investments in outsourced operations, trade deficits, money that goes to undocumented labor or war debt. There are fewer and fewer american companies that have any interest in us (americans) besides the bulge of our wallet. Globalization is not only the future today, but a way for corporations absolve themselves of tax support for the very communities they profit from. I think life for what was the American middle class, often living outside of their means these days, is on the verge of extinction.

I think eventually we will see American families respond by pooling resources, with a more widespread practice of multiple generations or relatives living together to share in the cost of day to day life.

Ulairi wrote:

I'd argue that more government intervention into the health industry is part of the reason for rising costs, along with lawsuits.

And I'd argue that it's more than coincidental that the rise in health care costs started around the time of the decline of unions/union bargaining power, while pointing fingers at government intervention is a handy scapegoat.

Rising incidents of lawsuits, I'll agree, do contribute to costs. The important question is how many of those lawsuits are justified. With it being such a charged issue for debate, there's not a lot of good, objective data out there to really figure out what's wrong and how to fix it.

Bear wrote:

If you really want to see what's going on in healthcare, look at the balance sheets of the insurers.

I'm not sure the insurers are quite as well off as everyone thinks, either, but that's not my sector.

As for the division between parties, I think that's been building since around the time Newt took over Congress. Big bumps came from the impeachment, elections of '00 and '04, and Iraq, but it's been getting worse for quite some time.

Haha, remember when W said he was a "uniter"?

Well, considering how horrendous his approval ratings are, he does seem to have succeeded in uniting most of the country against him...

Except for the idiots running to take his place, though.

Wordy wrote:

I'm not sure the insurers are quite as well off as everyone thinks, either, but that's not my sector.

It's not so much that they're making money, it's that they HAVE balance sheets, and are concerned with making money. At the point that the majority of insurers became national (bureaucratic) money-making (cost-cutting) machines, the insured started down the slide of lowered service and expectations. Companies providing health insurance made sense when it was the company providing the insurance. They want healthy, secure workers.

Companies providing a lower rate for insurance purchased from a third party are unable to really affect the service their employees get. More and more often, companies are switching to insurers who cost less, since the company is concerned about their bottom line. The insurer, also concerned about their bottom line, covers less.

If there's a downfall to capitalism, it's that costs which can't be measured in anything less than generational terms are considered irrelevant. This is a mistake that will be too late to rectify once it's discovered.

Another point there is that the appetite for health care is unlimited. That is, when you're sick/dying, you'll spend ANY amount of money that is available to you to try to stay alive, no matter how silly/remote the chance of success is. If insurers paid for everything people wanted, they'd be bankrupt overnight.

That said, I don't think medical insurance should be primarily a for-profit enterprise, since they can always make more money by letting you die as soon as you actually need health care.

Malor wrote:

Another point there is that the appetite for health care is unlimited. That is, when you're sick/dying, you'll spend ANY amount of money that is available to you to try to stay alive, no matter how silly/remote the chance of success is. If insurers paid for everything people wanted, they'd be bankrupt overnight.

If someone has a degenerative disease, but there is medication available that halts the progressive of their disease and allows them to be functional contributing members of society, should they be provided access to that medication as long as they pay what they can?

[edit]Or what if they do have a terminal condition, but there is treatment that may save them -- what percent of success is our cutoff point for saying it's too expensive to be worth the expense?

For those who object to providing universal health care coverage as a society, here's the real question: how much is human life worth? What's the dollar value? Because what a profit-driven medical system states is that if you can't pay the price for your life, then your life isn't worth enough to save.

[edit 2]Ok, sorry for the derail, this just is one of my two biggest pet topics in politics. The other is privacy/freedom.

Malor wrote:

That said, I don't think medical insurance should be primarily a for-profit enterprise, since they can always make more money by letting you die as soon as you actually need health care.

You may see it as a flaw, but with an efficient legal system they'd be forced to take care of you regardless.

But it's an interesting point. Perhaps joint health-life plans would be better?

I think America's economy is hollowing out at an unprecedented rate. When the best solution a consulting firm can give is to move product design, manufacturing and operations overseas to avoid the high cost of American workers, there is a storm a-brewing. There comes a point when almost nothing is left. When corporations spin us that our workers are not educated enough, just to humble our spirit into one of outsourcing acceptance, we are being prepared.

Well, there is always Movies, Music, and Microcode.

If someone has a degenerative disease, but there is medication available that halts the progressive of their disease and allows them to be functional contributing members of society, should they be provided access to that medication as long as they pay what they can?

From an ethical standpoint, of course we should treat them. But from a financial standpoint, can we afford to?

What if the treatment to save one life cost a billion dollars a year? Would that be worth it?

Lives DO have a dollar value. There isn't an infinite amount of money to treat things. Whether we like it or not, ultimately all health care decisions have to come to that central question: what is a life worth? Are all lives worth the same amount? If they're not, how do you determine a particular life's value?

Health care has dollar value because we apply dollar value to it. Everything of value has an arbitrary value assigned to it due to the intangible concept of money. Which, incidentally, is not uniform throughout the world.

So yes, from that perspective, you are correct: life has a perceived dollar value.

That central concept of our civilization is one of the things that is most holding us back: placing a dollar value on lives, not just saving them, but on quality of them.

I guess that's what drives me batty, this concept of humanity that places economics as the driving force of our species, rather than universal betterment. Yeah, I'm getting esoteric here, but really, economics is one of our greatest achievements and yet it's one of our greatest crutches as well.

So, what's the percentage rate of success for a treatment that we use as the cut-off point beyond a pre-specified maximum dollar amount for a treatment?

"Our apologies sir, but we calculate your daughter's chance of survival from this treatment as only 19.94%, placing it below our 20% cutoff point. If you want this treatment you'll have to pay out-of-pocket, and up-front, because your credit rating is too high of a risk for us to work out a payment plan."

Irongut wrote:

I think eventually we will see American families respond by pooling resources, with a more widespread practice of multiple generations or relatives living together to share in the cost of day to day life.

*This message brought to you in part by: The National Association for Illegal Immigration (a subsidiary of the Mexican Government); the new fuel efficient, 8 seated Honda "Pile in", Yes, we made just for you - Viva 'la México en los Estados Unidos, and the makers of the Mexican flag, "Our colors may get wet, but they don't run unless being chased by Border Patrol""…

ChronicNecrosis wrote:
Irongut wrote:

I think eventually we will see American families respond by pooling resources, with a more widespread practice of multiple generations or relatives living together to share in the cost of day to day life.

*This message brought to you in part by: The National Association for Illegal Immigration (a subsidiary of the Mexican Government); the new fuel efficient, 8 seated Honda "Pile in", Yes, we made just for you - Viva 'la México en los Estados Unidos, and the makers of the Mexican flag, "Ours colors may get wet, but they don't run unless being chased by Border Patrol""…

Hehe. I just think that though there has always been the option to have multi-generation family groups stateside, my impression was that it was not usually the first option. Maybe it is part of the american independent psyche, maybe its that inner frontiersperson in everyone, probably it just symbolizes the ritual transformation into a member of society.

Economically, its always been a viable option, but I think there has been more of a stigma attached to it as folks grow older if they are living at home and there is no over-riding reason for it to be so.. i.e. to support the parents health, in process or resolving a debt or getting back on track.. whatever it might be.

Large numbers of illegal aliens are likely leveraging shared costs, and I think that does set the precedent for it being more accepted as a practice again, if not at some point, fashionable in pop culture. Outside of all this though, i think the option of a typical american family living together will rise in appeal on the list of choices going forward, and possibly become the standard as middle / lower class families get squeezed from every direction.

ChronicNecrosis wrote:

silly stuff

Irongut wrote:

Intelligent stuff

Well said, and definitely I agree...As you may know, it is not uncommon in many American homes to find the type of family dynamic you have been describing. Although minority families would probably be the majority in this statistic, I don't think it's as much of a cultural thing as a financial thing due to the astronomical cost of nursing homes and inpatient health care. Nevertheless, it is already quite prevalent in the lower classes and as you've pointed out, it will continue to grow as the middle gets the squeeze.

I always assumed it was because it was just weird for your parents to hear you having sex.

On a serious note ... Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about our children's safety in this discussion. One thing I hear constantly and I do find to be true is the over protective nature of our generation versus our parents. When I was growing up, my dad didn't really seem as concerned that his two sons would disappear from the time they got home from school until it was time for dinner. Whereas I see all the time where parents will lose it when their children are out of their sight. I don't have any statistics to go with it but I do feel that the dynamics of the American household have gone from adult-centric to child-centric in ways that I don't see as always being healthy. Then again I also feel that the relationships between parents and their kids seem stronger than in the past so maybe we will see more multi-generational households in the future.

As far as I'm concerned, my children have already gotten themselves killed.

Then again, I haven't heard that I have any kids yet.

Farscry wrote:

So yes, from that perspective, you are correct: life has a perceived dollar value.

That central concept of our civilization is one of the things that is most holding us back: placing a dollar value on lives, not just saving them, but on quality of them.

I guess that's what drives me batty, this concept of humanity that places economics as the driving force of our species, rather than universal betterment. Yeah, I'm getting esoteric here, but really, economics is one of our greatest achievements and yet it's one of our greatest crutches as well.

So, what's the percentage rate of success for a treatment that we use as the cut-off point beyond a pre-specified maximum dollar amount for a treatment?

"Our apologies sir, but we calculate your daughter's chance of survival from this treatment as only 19.94%, placing it below our 20% cutoff point. If you want this treatment you'll have to pay out-of-pocket, and up-front, because your credit rating is too high of a risk for us to work out a payment plan."

This topic has been eloquently observed and analyzed in A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.

You present the "unconstrained" viewpoint - that any improvement is worth whatever the cost is. The "constrained" viewpoint says "what are the tradeoffs? Is this the most efficient use of limited resources?"

Like it or not, there aren't unlimited resources to spend on people's healthcare. That should be obvious even in the current U.S. system, where insurance tries to pay for everything until even they balk at the cost. The conversation you postulate happens daily, all around America, and indeed all around the world.