• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Healthcare - What solution, of those that are on the table, do you support?

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
OK, I think this poll is long overdue. I'm genuinely interested to see the results here in P&N.

My answer:
"I would support some reform and regulation, just not what is currently on the table."

/discuss
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
My vote is the same as the OP. The current bill is a joke and those who support it probably think so as well. It's just that at this point anything is better than nothing.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
My vote is the same as the OP. The current bill is a joke and those who support it probably think so as well. It's just that at this point anything is better than nothing.

I wholeheartedly disagree that "anything is better than nothing" if it makes the entire situation worse.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Mainly same as now, but with a couple of tweaks:

1. provide a government voucher/tax credit to purchase catastrophic care insurance. That will help keep most people from getting wiped out should the "get hit by a bus" type event come to pass.

2. allow for additional funding for free clinics to support basic services (vaccinations, acute care, etc) for those without insurance.

Any other kind of government intervention is likely to just screws things up or make it more expensive for the the 85%+ of who have health insurance, and should be opposed with vigor.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
My vote is the same as the OP. The current bill is a joke and those who support it probably think so as well. It's just that at this point anything is better than nothing.

I wholeheartedly disagree that "anything is better than nothing" if it makes the entire situation worse.

Exactly. It's just that for now the supporters are probably supporting for the sake of backing a side. Anything is better than nothing to them because it at least gets the ball rolling. This is a pretty horrible way of looking at things imho.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I said status quo but some reforms would be good. For example, charging somebody who doesn't have insurance many times more than what they'd pay if they did to make up for others like them who won't pay is just "not cool".
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
My vote is the same as the OP. The current bill is a joke and those who support it probably think so as well. It's just that at this point anything is better than nothing.

I wholeheartedly disagree that "anything is better than nothing" if it makes the entire situation worse.

Exactly. It's just that for now the supporters are probably supporting for the sake of backing a side. Anything is better than nothing to them because it at least gets the ball rolling. This is a pretty horrible way of looking at things imho.

+1
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
How about reform and DEREGULATION such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines?
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
69
91
10 replies and no partisan idiots so far?

I can't believe it!

What's wrong with the current bill? Honestly curious, as I haven't read it, nor have I seen an honest summary. I have seen a lot of partisan "death panel" idiocy that makes me want to vote for it as is, but that would make me just as illogical as the partisan fools.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: railer
10 replies and no partisan idiots so far?

I can't believe it!

What's wrong with the current bill? Honestly curious, as I haven't read it, nor have I seen an honest summary. I have seen a lot of partisan "death panel" idiocy that makes me want to vote for it as is, but that would make me just as illogical as the partisan fools.

OP's poll is trying to mirror others. We can keep partisan crap out of it if we stay honest and stick to the question at hand and the poll as it is presented.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Who the hell voted to keep the status quo?

I'd rather keep the status quo than go with the one currently on the table.

Only the one currently on the table? Heck, status quo will almost certainly be better than any past, present, or future plan that the current Congress is likely to come up with.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I voted keeping the status quo, having the present Government adding a little reform or little regulation is like being a little bit pregnant, it's going to be all or nothing for them and i'd rather it be nothing.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Lots that can fixed without throwing govt into the mix.

1. kill the tax shelter for employer provided health benefits and encourage individuals to carry their own catastrophic health insurance. Encourage companies to fund employees HSAs.

2. Encourage use of electronic records, but let the patient own them. No need to let them filter up to federal govt.

3. Tort reform. As an article on CNN pointed out today defensive medicine is a huge cost.

That would be a decent start and all 3 would probalby without too much difficulty as separate bills.

The crap that is being pushed though congress right now, is just that....crap.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: charrison
Lots that can fixed without throwing govt into the mix.

1. kill the tax shelter for employer provided health benefits and encourage individuals to carry their own catastrophic health insurance. Encourage companies to fund employees HSAs.

2. Encourage use of electronic records, but let the patient own them. No need to let them filter up to federal govt.

3. Tort reform. As an article on CNN pointed out today defensive medicine is a huge cost.

That would be a decent start and all 3 would probalby without too much difficulty as separate bills.

The crap that is being pushed though congress right now, is just that....crap.

All good ideas, but fall short of what we really need, imho.

1 is fine as the current employer-based system is fundamentally flawed. To me, a region/locality-based scheme that citizens buy into would be preferable. (these wouln't necessarily have to be gvt-owned) However, although HSA's can be quite useful, they really are just self-insurance by another name.

2. I think that this has been in the works for quite sometime. There are many companies now that have been making medical software for just that purpose for years. IIRC, during the Bush era a goal was set that all hospitals had to have EMR by a certain deadline and the software had to meet certain interoperability standards. Say what you want about Bush et al., but he did something good there. However, this caused a significant financial strain on smaller community hospitals which my former employer catered to for this purpose though. The current debate on EMR should focus more on getting these systems deployed to these smaller hospitals that do not have the financial resources.

3. Tort reform is nice, but you really have to keep in mind that no amount of tort reform can fix the current system by a longshot. As it stands now, you really can't "hit the redneck lottery" with a malpractice suit these days. If you do get a large award, you have to be pretty fucked up physically and be able to show gross negligence. I'm not denying that tort reform is part of the solution, but simply saying that too often it is used as an excuse to ignore other things that need fixing in the healthcare system.

Sorry for the teel deer, but I'm feeling particularly ranty right now. :)
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
lmao @ 19% for status quo. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
While I don't think anyone should ever be denied necessary care, the manner in which it's being attempted is disgusting.

First, get rid of insurance companies totally. They do nothing that can't be done a different way while lowering costs. Second, heavily regulate business in one of two ways: either direct government regulation, or government supported competition for businesses which are exploiting the public. This is especially true of healthcare/pharmaceuticals. Stick or carrot, it matters not one whit to me, as long as the end result is fair treatment for all citizens. Third, overhaul the judicial system to punish frivolous lawsuits (like making lawyers equally responsible for their participation), protect good faith efforts by all (especially medical personnel), rewrite patent law to avoid hording or exploitation by companies, etc. Fourth, launch a program of social/cultural revision designed to get citizens back to savings (not investment) and living within their means (and not on credit). Fifth, create government guaranteed catastrophic medical loans to handle exceptional cases. Sixth, give serious examination to the 'drug mentality' in this country and unless overwhelming proof of its viability exists, combat it. Finally, adopt and promote a preventative care system which focuses on societal issues that cause the most problems (obesity, stds, pregnancy, drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, etc).
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Who the hell voted to keep the status quo?

I'd rather keep the status quo than go with the one currently on the table.

Point. Add it to the poll.
That point was pretty much included as one alternative of the second choice, or somewhat implied.

my bad.

Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy. :)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
[ ... ]
Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy. :)
No, you really can't conclude that from your poll, because that's not what you asked. Having a different first choice does not mean opposition to all other choices. For example, if your poll asked people to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, a vote for chocolate does not imply the person is "against" vanilla.