And – depending on the state – an insurance company cannot offer policies not paying, for example, for routine costs of delivering a baby, or of hair transplants for men. (Therefore, everyone has to pay for these whether they plan to cause those expenses to be incurred or not.)
A woman must be able to have a child, including intentionally, without having to pay a penny out of pocket or at least not more than a small deductible for routine and predictable delivery costs; a man must be able to get hair transplants without having to pay out of pocket; and most assuredly the fat slob needs to be able to testify that he got his scooter from The Scooter Store “AT NO COST TO ME!”
See, it’s all magically free when it’s insurance or the taxpayer paying for it.
Just maybe the norm ought to be that one pays direcly for routine and predictable costs.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Funny, I’m looking for you (or other backers of alternative plans) to provide some novel ideas of the kinds of ‘reforms’ you support.
Ok here is my alternative as a right wing conservative:
5-10% of income is automatically taken away as a tax and placed into a bank account similar to how superannuation is taken in Australia. Every person has a mandated insurance account. They can then spend this money on any insurance policy they want including simply saving the money up. The unspent money is kept locked in the account for 5 years. After that time you can take it out. This money can be spent by you alone.
The government gets out of the healthcare market as much as possible. This means throwing away the regulation that gives HMO’s such power. And throwing away regulation that stops insurance companies from competing over state lines. Allow doctors to advertise prices etc.
A complete medical check up is required at least once per year. This is NOT covered by your insurance and is either paid out of pocket or via money in your mandated insurance account.
Regarding pre-existing conditions: Before taking out an insurance policy a complete medical check up is required. If they find a serious condition it is NOT covered. However everything else is covered. So the insurance companies cannot claim in the future that the condition you developed existed before the policy was taken out. When switching policies or insurance providers the medical check up is waived.
Medical insurance will also only cover severe problems/accidents etc. None of this minor stuff. Sore throat and you have to visit the doctor? Suck it up and pay for it yourself. Fall off your roof and need to go to the ER? Covered by insurance.
And because it is insurance there will be a time limit for coverage of some chronic conditions (I’m actually not sure how this is handled at the moment). In that I mean if you get diabetes and require a daily injection for the rest of your life the cost will only be covered for 2-3 years by the insurance company.
Bascially medical insurance should act in the same way every other form of insurance works.[/quote]
First, thank you for offering ideas rather than rhetoric.
Personally, I think some of these ideas would work and I’m not so sure about others. I liked the idea mandated checkups (or some form of incentive towards preventative care) and deregulation across state lines. I agree that these are good ideas.
Now I have a question for you. If any of these reforms were taken, would you be willing to lend your support to the bill? Would you want your representatives to vote for it? What is the minimum line for you? Or do you support this imperfect bill as Frist and others do? Also, has the CBO report done anything to change your mind? Congressional Budget Analysis Finds Health Plan in Line With Goals - The New York Times
One of the saddest parts about politics in this county (and everywhere I suppose) is the purposeful obfuscation that individuals engage in. Cries of “death panels” and “socialism” have drown out good ideas like the ones above. It’s hard to blame the salt of the earth who soak this stuff up. But it’s pretty easy to point to the individuals who are starting this.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Which star in the US flag is Japan?
–[/quote]
If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to learn what words mean and use them appropriately. There’s not much else to say about this.
[quote]
I’ve sent letters to my Congresscritters and Senators, what makes you think otherwise? (I’m not a passive citizen like the majority of the sheeple). Of course, they don’t read them as I always get boiler plate replies that do not address anything in the letters.
–[/quote]
And what did you say in those letters? Did you mention the reforms you want to see or did you scream about “socialism” and “total failure?” This is an honest question.
[quote]As far as over simplification, after 50 years of gov’t interference in something (I believe) the government shouldn’t be involved in, perhaps a “total withdrawal” of gov’t from healthcare is an oversimplification, like instant total withdrawal from Iraqistan. However, small steps in that direction are quite doable.
–[/quote]
I was talking about the oversimplification of the blame. Was the situation better or worse 50 years ago? Be honest.
[quote]
That’s sad about your parents, and yes, I can name folks I know in that situation and those who know people in that situation. I’m glad to hear that your father had a successful surgery. So he paid out of pocket. My grandfather with a 7th grade education saved his money for retirement and medical and paid for my grandmother’s time in nursing home while he was dying (died) of cancer. All the tests, meds, hospitalization, hospice, funeral, and legal all out of pocket. I’ve had a couple procedures paid for out of pocket. I know others who have paid (are paying) out of pocket. In many cases if a doc/surgeon knows this will be the case, they will work with the patient. As mentioned earlier, it’s a trend in many places that docs don’t even take insurance because it lowers their costs and let’s them be doctors and surgeons instead of “health administrators”. I’ve posted about a friend who’s a doctor in W.Virginia who even barters for care for those many family with nothing. What’s your point? [/quote]
Since you didn’t catch it the first time, my “point” was that these type of anecdotes don’t prove anything and I was hoping we could move beyond them. My sub-point was that doing nothing is unacceptable. If you’d like I could tell you about how my Grandmother with an 8th grade education and a very low paying job paid for my grandfather’s decade-long care expenses. But what is the point? You started these stories. What is your point?
Why are you mentioning this? How does it relate to your argument?
Mostly because I thought this thread was more of a joke than anything else. Within the premise to your argument you showed that you aren’t really open to hearing a logical debate of the tough choices that need to be made. So I thought spending some time on your premise might provide fruitful. It hasn’t yet, and I don’t much expect it to. But here’s where we are.
The reforms I’ve been thinking about aren’t really on the table from either party from what I’ve seen. But I would like something to be done. A imperfect step in the right direction is better than standing still while the ship crashes around us.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Okay. What do you gents think of this as a health care plan?
[/quote]
I’m on the last page, but have to do something for a little while.
EDIT: Ok, just finished it.
A few points:
One, I have no way of knowing the accuracy of the facts and figures he gives though I also have no reason to believe he isn’t in a better position than I am to give them.
Two, nobody, including him can very accurately predict future facts and figures sitting where we are right now though it doesn’t hurt I suppose to at least take an educated stab.
Three, from my own reading and experience, his assessment of the current situation seems quite accurate overall. I have been a very loud critic of the medical industry for years and quite outspoken about it here, even including many of the exact criticisms he propounds.
Four, at first blush his group of solutions as a framework seem preferable to either the current system or most definitely the abominations being proposed by the gang on Capitol Hill. As a framework and at first blush. Whole volumes could be written about any single aspect of what he proposes.
Five and most importantly, the people positioned to make these decisions at the moment couldn’t care less about anybody’s health or the cost of it’s maintenance and repair except insofar as it further empowers THEM. Nobody will convince me otherwise. This administration and this house and senate are all about creating as much central dependence as possible as quickly as possible. Every synaptic quiver in their brains is geared to that end and hence his very fine idea of drastically reducing the influence of government is an absolute non starter.
For the record I have made very clear my dim view of the horrific role that the pooled resources of the insurance industry has played as well in our convoluted medical industries in this country and for the very reasons he states.
I can actually quote a doctor from Harvard on this:
“Americans largely dismiss the Canadian system as not worth looking at because the American media campaigns to discredit Canada have been so effective. The United States has a high degree of ignorance about the Canadian system… When I talk about health care reform, i frequently get an array of Canada-bashing type questions—except from the Canadians , who often come up after the session to praise their system and scratch their heads over why the U.S. system is so bad… Many of them regard (our system) as barbaric… And it’s not socialized medicine… The delivery system is overwhelmingly private. We have much to learn from Canada.” Robert H. Lebow, MD.
I’d love to discuss this mans thoughts if anyone cares to. In large part I agree with him, the system we have has interesting priorities.
Re Tiribulus:
I thought some people around here would like that.
I’m not a healthcare economist, but I’ve tried to educate myself, and as I understand it, we have rising costs because of the inherent market failures in a system dominated by third-party payments. Every incentive goes the wrong way. That has to change.
I’m sympathetic to the view that we have a moral obligation to make sure nobody in this country suffers or dies from lack of medical care. But the plans in Congress now aren’t going to get to the root of the problem, and if prices keep rising people are still going to be uninsured or underinsured. Goldhill’s plan – which looks pretty much like phaethon’s plan, and like Milton Friedman’s plan ten years ago (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html) – just seems more sensible to me. And I’m not a conservative by any means.
Look. Alternatives to the Finance Commitee plan are being floated. These ideas show up in the Atlantic and the NYT. We may not get real reform this time around, but maybe in four years when the public is dissatisfied.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Now I have a question for you. If any of these reforms were taken, would you be willing to lend your support to the bill? Would you want your representatives to vote for it? What is the minimum line for you? Or do you support this imperfect bill as Frist and others do? Also, has the CBO report done anything to change your mind? Congressional Budget Analysis Finds Health Plan in Line With Goals - The New York Times
[/quote]
Yes I would. Personally I would like small steps. I would prefer any radical changes to be done at the state level. California is big enough that it can implement universal health care for Californians without the help of anyone else.
I live in Australia and like the Australian system. But what the left have to understand is that universal health care can VERY EASILY be implemented INCORRECTLY and cause HUGE problems. Implementing it on a state level would help mitigate the risk.
What I don’t like about the current proposal is it joines a whole bunch of seperate issues. For instance most of the cost savings will come from cutting waste from Medicare/Medicaid. Now Medicare/Medicaid is corrupt and inefficient and has been for years. Key point: And has been for years.
So why join that in with the new changes? Well A) It looks like there will be a cost saving. And B) If I support the reform of Medicare/Medicaid I am pushed into supporting other changes that I don’t like.
The fact is Americans already pay as much in taxes for health care as Australians do. And yet Australians get universal health care and Americans get next to nothing. So I support fixing the current American government health care system.
It doesn’t require more spending. It requires stamping out corruption and inefficiencies.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I can actually quote a doctor from Harvard on this:
“Americans largely dismiss the Canadian system as not worth looking at because the American media campaigns to discredit Canada have been so effective. The United States has a high degree of ignorance about the Canadian system… When I talk about health care reform, i frequently get an array of Canada-bashing type questions—except from the Canadians , who often come up after the session to praise their system and scratch their heads over why the U.S. system is so bad… Many of them regard (our system) as barbaric… And it’s not socialized medicine… The delivery system is overwhelmingly private. We have much to learn from Canada.” Robert H. Lebow, MD.
I’d love to discuss this mans thoughts if anyone cares to. In large part I agree with him, the system we have has interesting priorities.[/quote]
Er what? If anything, the media has been demonizing the AMERICAN system. They’ve been claiming insurance companies are killing people in large numbers. Frankly, I find it hysterical.
I do not want to pay for people who live like slobs and their poor lifestyle. The guy who eats drive thru every day, smokes, and pops meds like candy to address his issues is not my responsibility. Be your own doctor, and if you need serious help, go and get it at a real doctor. Some have no responsibility with themselves, and I do not want to pay a penny for them.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< we have rising costs because of the inherent market failures in a system dominated by third-party payments. Every incentive goes the wrong way. That has to change. >>>[/quote]
Agreed. Also agreed is his very sensible proposal that third party disbursements only be made in the case of catastrophic unforseen circumstance. HSA’s were actually a Teddy Kennedy idea and one of his very few good ones at least compared to either what we have now or what’s being proposed. However they also empower individuals and diminish the influence of DC and are also hence a non starter.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< I’m sympathetic to the view that we have a moral obligation to make sure nobody in this country suffers or dies from lack of medical care. >>>[/quote]
I am sympathetic to the view that moral obligation cannot be legislated anymore than morality itself can be. I would be all for private charity foundations that maintained funds for that purpose. If it is not voluntary it is neither moral nor obligatory where those outside of ones immediate responsibility are concerned. If the nation feels it their moral obligation to make sure nobody in this country suffers or dies from lack of medical care start a fund and take donations. If it falls short then the nation may not see itself as morally obligated as some would like to believe. People love to talk about how morally obligated other people’s money is.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< But the plans in Congress now aren’t going to get to the root of the problem, and if prices keep rising people are still going to be uninsured or underinsured. >>>[/quote]
Believe this my dear (is that harassment?) you WILL one day anyway. The plans in congress are not about healthcare. They are about power.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< Goldhill’s plan – which looks pretty much like phaethon’s plan, and like Milton Friedman’s plan ten years ago (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html) – just seems more sensible to me. >>>[/quote]
I tend to agree
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< And I’m not a conservative by any means. >>>[/quote]
Ya don’t say =] You’re a smart girl which at this stage in your life may actually be working against you. It won’t matter how I say that, it’ll sound wrong anyway so I’ll just say it
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< Look. Alternatives to the Finance Commitee plan are being floated. These ideas show up in the Atlantic and the NYT. We may not get real reform this time around, but maybe in four years when the public is dissatisfied. >>>[/quote]
The public should have been dissatisfied the minute all this crap started in the first place. It’s a bit late to start grumbling now. Pretty soon it won’t make any difference how dissatisfied any non bureaucrat is anyway.
“Ya don’t say =] You’re a smart girl which at this stage in your life may actually be working against you. It won’t matter how I say that, it’ll sound wrong anyway so I’ll just say it.”
I have honestly no idea what you mean by that. Explain? I won’t get offended.
Basically, we agree, I think. I don’t like assuming the worst about my government, but sometimes the facts make it impossible to see things any other way.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
I can actually quote a doctor from Harvard on this: >>>
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
It’s settled[/quote]
Right that doesn’t settle anything, however he has a lot more perspective than any one having this discussion, therefore he is an authority and you should pay attention to what he thinks. He also talks about the problems with canadian healthcare, but doesn’t connect it with single payer health care (which is actually the correct term as opposed to socialized medicine).
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
I can actually quote a doctor from Harvard on this:
“Americans largely dismiss the Canadian system as not worth looking at because the American media campaigns to discredit Canada have been so effective. The United States has a high degree of ignorance about the Canadian system… When I talk about health care reform, i frequently get an array of Canada-bashing type questions—except from the Canadians , who often come up after the session to praise their system and scratch their heads over why the U.S. system is so bad… Many of them regard (our system) as barbaric… And it’s not socialized medicine… The delivery system is overwhelmingly private. We have much to learn from Canada.” Robert H. Lebow, MD.
I’d love to discuss this mans thoughts if anyone cares to. In large part I agree with him, the system we have has interesting priorities.
Er what? If anything, the media has been demonizing the AMERICAN system. They’ve been claiming insurance companies are killing people in large numbers. Frankly, I find it hysterical.
[/quote]
Does the term Obamas death panels ring a bell to you? That’s the image that Fox News is trying to present with single payer health care.
“Large numbers” is relative, what have you heard being said by credited news networks in terms of figures. Contrary to what you may believe, if a hospital is unable to incur the cost of a procedure that is not covered by insurance, then the sick individual cannot receive care at said hospital. This is surprisingly common with families that are underinsured especially, and often leads to death or severe limitations.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Does the term Obamas death panels ring a bell to you? That’s the image that Fox News is trying to present with single payer health care.
“Large numbers” is relative, what have you heard being said by credited news networks in terms of figures. Contrary to what you may believe, if a hospital is unable to incur the cost of a procedure that is not covered by insurance, then the sick individual cannot receive care at said hospital. This is surprisingly common with families that are underinsured especially, and often leads to death or severe limitations.[/quote]
Yes, because one news station constitutes the entire US media. GO ahead and ignore that CNN, CBS and MSNBC have been demonizing the current system as much as humanly possible. All they seem to talk about is how many people are “killed” by not having insurance.
As for your second point… and? So what? That isn’t an argument against our system, yet they certainly phrase it as such. If we moved in an even more American direction we’d be even better off in that field, because hospitals would be able to lower prices for low income patients (which is called charity, charity is basically ass raped by medicare price rulings).
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
“Ya don’t say =] You’re a smart girl which at this stage in your life may actually be working against you. It won’t matter how I say that, it’ll sound wrong anyway so I’ll just say it.”
I have honestly no idea what you mean by that. Explain? I won’t get offended.[/quote]
Let’s just say that your faith in and affinity for the pseudo compassionate institutionalized intelligentsia have not had time to sour yet. I’m betting they will though will.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Basically, we agree, I think. I don’t like assuming the worst about my government, but sometimes the facts make it impossible to see things any other way.[/quote]
Now see here’s where the rubber meets the road. The founders of this nation, although some more than others, assumed the worst about government as a principle. A necessary evil. An entity at once unavoidable where civilization would exist at all and the greatest threat to it. A precarious balancing act wherein one stiff political breeze too many in one direction or the other would land their fledgling nation in either anarchy or tyranny.
The entire trajectory was one of incessant suspicion of power with a moral and attentive populous ever in it’s face ensuring it’s limits and accountability. If they were to be brought back today they would fall to their knees in horrified revulsion at what we’ve done with what they left us.
James Madison, 1792
[quote]“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”[/quote]
James Madison, Federalist 45
Thomas Jefferson, 1791
If original intent means anything at all then assuming the worst of this government is a manifest duty. If it doesn’t then our constitutional republic has fallen to the ground.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Does the term Obamas death panels ring a bell to you? That’s the image that Fox News is trying to present with single payer health care.
“Large numbers” is relative, what have you heard being said by credited news networks in terms of figures. Contrary to what you may believe, if a hospital is unable to incur the cost of a procedure that is not covered by insurance, then the sick individual cannot receive care at said hospital. This is surprisingly common with families that are underinsured especially, and often leads to death or severe limitations.
Yes, because one news station constitutes the entire US media. GO ahead and ignore that CNN, CBS and MSNBC have been demonizing the current system as much as humanly possible. All they seem to talk about is how many people are “killed” by not having insurance.
As for your second point… and? So what? That isn’t an argument against our system, yet they certainly phrase it as such. If we moved in an even more American direction we’d be even better off in that field, because hospitals would be able to lower prices for low income patients (which is called charity, charity is basically ass raped by medicare price rulings).[/quote]
You don’t know much about my position on the media which is fine. I believe there are a lot of dirty tactics being used by the media, but Fox news is without a doubt leading the way in douchebaggery.
Back to my point, the Canadian system is unjustly being demonized by critics of health care reform. The OP commented that there are multiple failing single payer health systems such as Canada’s system. This is a myth, and I can illustrate it with a simple survey from Dr. Kovners book “Health care delivery in the U.S.” This is as of 2005, the American statistics are larger now.
Percentage of people who believe that health care system should be rebuilt:
Canada: 17
America: 30
Difference: 13
Same statistic among those who avoided care because of the cost:
Canada: 39
America: 67
Difference: 28
Americans are the most dissatisfied with their healthcare worldwide. We don’t get what we pay for.