Its not worth trying to explain this..
For instance...Indiana is a republican state and even had a budget surplus the last few years...guess what? They have a robust system to help needy parents with children with special needs called "First Steps"
Guess what the outcome is? The children get targetted intervention at a early age with OT and PT based on needs. Guess what the net outcome is of this horrible free lunch for undeserving parents?
Yup they require less care as they get older and use less benefits because their problems are treated preventively.
Not to repeat myself but the two states that have robust health care options for the needy and poor-Hawaii and Romneyland...have lowered costs across the board because people don't walk into a emergency room for a cold or worse yet wait for pneumonia to almost kill them..
When my kids were born last year they spent countless days in the NICU at the best NICU in the state of Indiana. There were many babies in there with horrible problems ranging from addiction to extreme malnourishment... I mention these two issues because they were fully preventable. In fact a large percentage of them came in not ever having one visit or a ounce of preventative care....
The difference is that it is done on the state level, and it does not MANDATE that people purchase a private service from a private company.
Look, if you can't understand the difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE, then you should probably just kill yourself now because you will always be unhappy in life.
There is nothing wrong with state-provided aid for children. Nothing at all. However, no one has yet seriously considered what CAUSED prices of medical care to get so high that medical insurance is virtually required for preventative care. These issues are not addressed in the Obamacare bill and they aren't addressed by the various government-run clinics in various states.
I can't speak for all the causes, but I can certainly tell you what ISN'T a major contributor: not enough people using the services. The government claims that "if only more people used these services, the prices would go down". Anyone that has studied microeconomics for an hour knows that's not the case.
You think that I'm here arguing that we shouldn't help children whose parents don't take them to get their regular checkups and immunizations. That's not what I'm here arguing for. I'm arguing against the current legislation that has been passed that claims to address the issues. It doesn't, and claims that it does are fallatious.
If the legislature really wanted to address the issue, they would get rid of Medicare. That, and that alone would probably reduce health CARE costs by 60-70%, because (once again) prices would not be determined by what the government is willing to pay, but rather by what patients and doctors determine are acceptable prices. The solution to providing preventative care for families that truely cannot afford health care is not to make insurance cheaper for them. That's like trying to cure herpes by using anti-itch cream to mask the symptoms. It doesn't work. The solution is to make healthcare cost less.
The right solution is a government-run hospital that anyone without private insurance can use for a subsidised price. Give them free access to the SERVICE, not the ability to seek the service wherever the hell they want. Then, if people want to use private physicians, they can. Trying to solve a price problem by adding more middlemen is just plain stupid. Insurance and medicare drive health care costs up. Adding more does nothing to reduce the health care costs.
We will likely never see a real solution to this problem because no lawmaker has the balls to take on the insurance industry, and none want to committ political suicide by abolishing Medicare...even if the new legislation would make Medicare irrelevant.
Facebook
Twitter