Healthcare summit--Interesting youtube vid I found

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hacp

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
A few things that I'd look out for in any republican plan is if it gives money to private companies. That's a government handout to private companies at the expense of taxpayers. Republicans like to use "market strategies" to tackle these problems but what they're really doing is handing taxpayer money to these companies on a silver platter. And guess what? They get to choose who the winners and losers are, not the market. Not much better than any democratic solution.

Someone needs to get in there, rip out all the spending and entitlement bills, and let the people decide how to spend their own money.
 
C

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
soccerballtux said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded

Just FYI. Worth watching. That guy is charismatic I liked him 20 seconds in :)
He put down very well in words why the Republicans don't like the current healthcare bill and want to start over and build something else from the ground up.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Yes and he will be the face of further democratic control. Sooner or later people are going to get tired of hearing Republicans cry oh me. You watch. Everyone realizes that we have to tackle healthcare and soon people are gonna hold the republicans accountable for not addressing the issue. You can only harp on one or two points against a healthcare bill for so long.
 
C

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I like Ryan, he was one of the more reasonable people there. Some of his numbers are a bit...well, I don't want to say bogus, because he has a valid point, but not necessarily accurate. A lot of what he says is information that was provided by the conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation. That's where the number saying 1.4 trillion deficit over the second 10 years comes from.

If you look at the analysis from the Lewin Group (which is independent organization, but owned by United Healthcare) the second 10 year deficit under the Senate bill is around $80 billion over 10 years. So, his point is valid (it's not budget neutral) but I think his numbers are way off.

When it comes to pre-existing conditions...Republicans didn't address it in many of their bills, because it requires doing things antithetical to conservative principles. Nothing really wrong with that, but I wish they would stop saying they want to do something about them when it's not addressed in so much of their legislation (including Boener's bill).
 
Last edited:
First

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ His numbers are entirely off really, since $80B and $1.4T are simply different stratospheres of impact on the U.S. economy. One number is 0.006% of GDP, and the other is 10% of GDP. $80B is absolutely nothing significant when you're talking about being able to kill off pre-existing conditions alone, which'll statistically save 100,000 lives. But add in the fact that 30M+ more people will be covered, which is 10%+ of the population, and the fact that healthier people are significantly more productive over their lifetimes economically, and it's pretty much a no-brainer. To say nothing of the moral obligation of course.
 
Last edited:
S

soccerballtux

Lifer
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
classy said:
Yes and he will be the face of further democratic control. Sooner or later people are going to get tired of hearing Republicans cry oh me. You watch. Everyone realizes that we have to tackle healthcare and soon people are gonna hold the republicans accountable for not addressing the issue. You can only harp on one or two points against a healthcare bill for so long.
Click to expand...

Guys I promise you the only solution long term is to increase the number of healthcare workers. There are currently 2 major barriers keeping people out--
1). education cost (take on tons of debt)
2). education duration (graduate at 27-28, pay loans off till 32)

The opportunity cost of #1+2 combined is you can't have a family. Costs too much, don't have time, studying, etc; you don't get started looking until 28-30 at least.
Who wants to miss out that much on life? Most people don't, few think the money is worth it.

If you want to ensure even fewer people enter the scene you will mandate the cost of services be a certain amount-- ie lower than what the market demands-- then even fewer people will consider entering healthcare.

Long term I think we need to
1). decrease the barrier to entry. Enable students to start working towards a health degree from the beginning of HighSchool-- let some of the classes count
2). decrease cost of education and breadth of classes required. Colleges don't need to teach students to write, if they haven't figured it out already they'll learn pretty quick when their biology and chemistry classes tell them they can't write research papers.
3). I would support of a government funded health-education-advertisement campaign. Inform people of the need for more doctors, give them a website that explains how they can pay for the education (government provides lots of lower interest rate loans if you're pursuing becoming a doctor).

Whatever you do, don't decrease the amount that doctors get paid. Then these guys that spend 10 years of their life studying like crazy and racking up hundreds of thousands in debt won't be able to pay it off.

Anything else will result in a reduction in quality and quantity of care provided.
 
S

soccerballtux

Lifer
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
First said:
^ His numbers are entirely off really, since $80B and $1.4T are simply different stratospheres of impact on the U.S. economy. One number is 0.006% of GDP, and the other is 10% of GDP. $80B is absolutely nothing significant when you're talking about being able to kill off pre-existing conditions alone, which'll statistically save 100,000 lives. But add in the fact that 30M+ more people will be covered, which is 10%+ of the population, and the fact that healthier people are significantly more productive over their lifetimes economically, and it's pretty much a no-brainer. To say nothing of the moral obligation of course.
Click to expand...

all I know is that it's all going to cost a frickin huge amount going forward. 80 million retiring baby boomers is going to be a HUGE shock to the demand curve for healthcare. Huge shocks to demand when there is limited, inelastic supply leads directly to higher prices. We have to increase the supply of workers.

I wonder if there's any way we could stop requiring doctors see you just for a sore throat-- have nurses handle simple stuff and escalate if anything seems out of the ordinary.
 
sMiLeYz

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
soccerballtux said:
Whatever you do, don't decrease the amount that doctors get paid. Then these guys that spend 10 years of their life studying like crazy and racking up hundreds of thousands in debt won't be able to pay it off.

Anything else will result in a reduction in quality and quantity of care provided.
Click to expand...

I don't get this, people talk about deficits being a looming disaster (it's not) but won't take any hard choices (cutting military budget, or medicare payouts).

The fact is there has to be some sort of cost control involved in healthcare, the health care is not just about making insurance more affordable and more available to more people but to cut some costs out of bloated system.
 
S

soccerballtux

Lifer
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
You're right they won't.

How do you say it's not a looming disaster? It just seems obvious there are going to have to be some major changes going forward within the next 10 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom