Let's debate Healthcare

[DietDrThunder]

I believe the number 1 criteria in any legislation put forward from today should be to contain health car costs. Double digit health care inflation should no longer be tolerated. Here is an idea and let's hear your thoughts.

Outlaw health insurance for everyone. When I was a kid, health insurance was basically unheard of unless you worked for a major corporation and it was a perk, or in a union. The middle and lower classes for the most part didn't have health insurance, and people paid as they went. I remember as a kid going to the doctor, and the doctor's office consisted of one nurse/receptionist, and one doctor. There were no medical payment forms for them to keep track of, everyone paid cash. It wasn't cheap but it wasn't unaffordable. If someone got really sick or injured and had to be hospitalized, the patient was treated, YOU watched the expenses, and when it came time to pay, if you couldn't pay it right then, it was arranged for you to make payments. Without insurance, Doctors and especially hospitals, will have to do a better job of controlling their prices or no one will afford their services. The hospitals will no longer be able to pad the bill with treatments that weren't performed and expect someone to pay for them. I saw an itemized billing that my co-worker received for her hospital stay, and she was outraged at all the medicines and treatments that were billed to the insurance that she never received. Look at the doctor's offices today, look at the staff of the Physician's group, many of which are not nurses but are there just to handle the insurance. What a waist of resources. I believe health insurance is the cause of our spiraling out of control health car costs. Until our representitves do something about the cost, there should be no thought given to universal healthcare for all.

 

[BoberFett]

Let's not.

 

[Craig234]

You're mixing together issues.

One is that the available treatments have greatly increased in number and expense.

Another is that medicine with those new complexities create great efficiencies in an HMO versus the small independant practice, for everything from referrals to specialists to access to expensive equipment.

We used to have doctors make house calls as the normal way to practice - the person is sick, the doctor should come to them, right?

Another is the high salaries of doctors we have chosen to have - including in light of the long training needed for modern advanced medicine.

Those are all issues apart from the insurance, which does greatly add to the cost.

Another is our desire for people to get at least emergency treatment - and the difficulty for so many to pay the big bills even with insurance, making major medical costs the #1 cause of bankruptcy.

Getting rid of insurance costs as you suggest is a nice idea, but the way to do it is with 'single payer', not a return to simple 'pay with cash or set up billing', and that includes universal healthcare.

As with so many things, we can use 'independant experts' who are not sponsored by someone making a lot of money - but seeing how even the 'grass roots' president ran scared from fighting the industry, based on how badly the last guy, Clinton, got beat by them, much less how badly the corporatist guy McCain would have (in the unikely evet there was any attempt at 'reform' at all), it's not easy.

That's what happens when industries - whether healthcare or finance or whatever - are allowed to go crazy obtaining power to get 'too big to fail' or at least 'too big for the government to say no to', because it's easier for politicians not to represent the public and oversee them, but instead to give them what they want and get the campaign donations while the public doesn't pay attention and listens to outlets like Fox that encourage the public to go along with this sort of thing, attacking the politicians who would represent the public.

 

[Skitzer]

Again ....... lets not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Let's debate Healthcare

Republican plan - Rich you live, all others die

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm all for getting rid of the insurance company middlemen. They are costing us a lot of money. In place of the insurance companies we need a government-managed national health care system. The solution to our problem is real socialized medicine which has proven to work well in other nations.

What the OP proposes is for people to pay for cancer treatment and whatnot out-of-pocket. I agree that insurance companies are a problem and that we need to get rid of them, but going to a no-insurance-companies-pay-out-of-pocket system isn't the way to go.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Another part of the equation is that we no longer have a "true" two party system. Either party that obtains the majority basically abuses this position. The loser or minority party becomes the antagonizer. There is no compromise between either side, and therefore no good legislation can be formed. It happened when the Republicans were in control, now the same thing is happening now that the Democrats are in control. Unless both sides decide to cooperate, there can never be meaningful health care reform.

 

[IGBT]

tort reform has to occur first. then logical approach to true medical reform can proceed with lasting results.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe the number 1 criteria in any legislation put forward from today should be to contain health car costs. Double digit health care inflation should no longer be tolerated. Here is an idea and let's hear your thoughts.

Outlaw health insurance for everyone. When I was a kid, health insurance was basically unheard of unless you worked for a major corporation and it was a perk, or in a union. The middle and lower classes for the most part didn't have health insurance, and people paid as they went. I remember as a kid going to the doctor, and the doctor's office consisted of one nurse/receptionist, and one doctor. There were no medical payment forms for them to keep track of, everyone paid cash. It wasn't cheap but it wasn't unaffordable. If someone got really sick or injured and had to be hospitalized, the patient was treated, YOU watched the expenses, and when it came time to pay, if you couldn't pay it right then, it was arranged for you to make payments. Without insurance, Doctors and especially hospitals, will have to do a better job of controlling their prices or no one will afford their services. The hospitals will no longer be able to pad the bill with treatments that weren't performed and expect someone to pay for them. I saw an itemized billing that my co-worker received for her hospital stay, and she was outraged at all the medicines and treatments that were billed to the insurance that she never received. Look at the doctor's offices today, look at the staff of the Physician's group, many of which are not nurses but are there just to handle the insurance. What a waist of resources. I believe health insurance is the cause of our spiraling out of control health car costs. Until our representitves do something about the cost, there should be no thought given to universal healthcare for all.

You make an interesting case. If the average American could only afford to pay 10 dollars to see a doctor, doctors would make nothing if they charged more. The cost of seeing a doctor, thus, would be 10 dollars. However, there would be no doctors of the kind we have now, folk who doctor for money. We would only have 4 or 5 people who felt it as a calling. We also wouldn't have half the smart people on earth thinking up the most expensive way they can to keep you alive.

Maybe you could have the doctor's office right next to a guy who will put a bullet through your head if you get sick and start to suffer, maybe also 10 dollars a pop.

 

[Craig234]

tort reform has to occur first. then logical approach to true medical reform can proceed with lasting results.

Yes, reducing the system's ost by 0.5% and preventing legitimatly wronged people from any conpensation and accountability that discourages wrongdoing is the first need. Good argument.

 

[Blackjack200]

You make an interesting case. If the average American could only afford to pay 10 dollars to see a doctor, doctors would make nothing if they charged more. The cost of seeing a doctor, thus, would be 10 dollars. However, there would be no doctors of the kind we have now, folk who doctor for money. We would only have 4 or 5 people who felt it as a calling. We also wouldn't have half the smart people on earth thinking up the most expensive way they can to keep you alive.

Maybe you could have the doctor's office right next to a guy who will put a bullet through your head if you get sick and start to suffer, maybe also 10 dollars a pop.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence or fancy equipment to prescribe narcotics. :awe:

 

[Craig234]

Another part of the equation is that we no longer have a "true" two party system. Either party that obtains the majority basically abuses this position. The loser or minority party becomes the antagonizer. There is no compromise between either side, and therefore no good legislation can be formed. It happened when the Republicans were in control, now the same thing is happening now that the Democrats are in control. Unless both sides decide to cooperate, there can never be meaningful health care reform.

Wow, that's nuts.

For 8 years, Bush got every major agenda item passed except privatiing social security, WITH the votes of a number of crossover Democrats.

THat's nothing like the 'cooperate with nothing' approach of the Republicans.

 

[brencat]

Let's not. Instead, how about we debate how best to cut umemployment (instead of the current method of having them drop off the rolls after unemployment/extended/emergency comp runs out?)

How about cutting corporate taxes & regulation to jump start hiring?

OR

Let's keep wasting everyone's time with a 7th priority item like healthcare and watch the Dems get crushed in November...

Easy call I think

 

[drebo]

My BIGGEST complaint with debates, threads, and legislation about this topic is that people equate HEALTHCARE to HEALTH INSURANCE.

They are NOT the same thing, and the latter is NOT required to get the former. Is Health Insurance expensive? Yes. Why is it expensive? Because health care's prices have been driven up.

How do we fix the problem? Should the government just subsidize health insurance, as they plan to? Absolutely not, because that just addresses the symptom, and not the problem.

What the government needs to do is reform the legislation that CAUSED health care costs to rise. This includes Medicare/Medicaid, tort reform, and any other regulations that serve no real goal or are outdated. Of course, this method provides them with no tax revenue and doesn't let the government meddle in the health insurance industry, so there's no chance of it ever happening.

Until they're willing to fix the CAUSES of why health care costs so much (and stop beating around the subsidy bush), I will continue to support filibuster blocking for any healthcare bill.

The plain truth of the matter is that if someone needs health care, they can get it (usually for free). There are many, many free clinics around the country, and hospitals are NOT ALLOWED to turn ANYONE away for lack of ID or payment. If someone truely needs health care, they can get it. For everyone else, the government is cheifly responsible for increasing the cost of health care, and the government needs to fix it. Masking the symptoms with subsidies is NOT the answer.

To recap: HEALTH CARE != HEALTH INSURANCE, and the prices of each are high for very different reasons.

 

[StageLeft]

The quaint idea that we should save up in our bank account and then give the doctor a check when we have a bad cold is one thing but the average person cannot possibly save up for a major ailment that these days can potentially run hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if the markup was taken out sometimes it's just freaking expensive and no matter what payment plan you try you'd never be able to pay it back. The reason it worked back in 1870 is because most of the treatments available now weren't around. The doctor could hack your leg off but otherwise gave you a pat on the back and said "Yep, you're fvcked", so of course you didn't need much money to pay for him.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree that our politicians need to address our larger economic problems and the problem of unemployment. However, they also need to address health care. If they cannot handle addressing two interconnected issues at the same time then they have no business governing. (Heck, the fact that they haven't already addressed this is evidence enough.)

 

[JS80]

Why go that far? Killing medicare and medicaid will reduce enough demand.

 

[StageLeft]

I agree that our politicians need to address our larger economic problems and the problem of unemployment. However, they also need to address health care. If they cannot handle addressing two interconnected issues at the same time then they have no business governing. (Heck, the fact that they haven't already addressed this is evidence enough.)

Gov cannot even address one issue well, two is like asking a one-armed chimp to juggle two dozen chainsaws.

 

[Lemon law]

My only comment is that maybe Obama blew it when he went to congress and said, here congress, find a way to reform health care.

And as a result we had a huge number of different propals, allof which had up sides and downsides, and the downsides were always inflated by the use of basic lies into totally unacceptable alternatives.

And we never got to a stage where we could apples to apples, oranges to oranges, compare the health system we have with the health care system we could have.

Nor did anyone ever really focus on the huge downsides of the health care system we have. A system whose collapse is already evident as unchecked double digit inflation for decades has made our existing system very expensive and not cost effective.

In short we threw away all logic and embraced raw emotional fear. Thus kicking the can down the road.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is Health Insurance expensive? Yes. Why is it expensive? Because health care's prices have been driven up.

Because a very large percentage of the people who earn a living off of the health care industry, perhaps 40 or 50%, have nothing to do with actually providing health care. Rather, they push paper around. I am referring to insurance company employees, insurance brokers, benefits plan managers, medical billing specialists, and the like. Another problem is illegal immigration and also the legal immigration of poor immigrants and thus having to provide health care for immigrants who don't contribute anything to our economy that unemployed Americans could not do.

How do we fix the problem? Should the government just subsidize health insurance, as they plan to? Absolutely not, because that just addresses the symptom, and not the problem.

It might be good to start by looking at what other nations that don't have these kinds of problems are doing. It's just amazing that America can spend 16-17% of its GDP on health care that doesn't cover everyone and that causes a horde of other problems while other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care that covers 100% of their population. Some of those countries even have more doctors per capita than the U.S. (They don't have as many wealthy insurance execs, though--what those other countries are doing is not good for the yacht industry.)

What the government needs to do is reform the legislation that CAUSED health care costs to rise. This includes Medicare/Medicaid, tort reform, and any other regulations that serve no real goal or are outdated. Of course, this method provides them with no tax revenue and doesn't let the government meddle in the health insurance industry, so there's no chance of it ever happening.

Until they're willing to fix the CAUSES of why health care costs so much (and stop beating around the subsidy bush), I will continue to support filibuster blocking for any healthcare bill.

Could you please elaborate on what exactly it is that caused health care costs to rise? What specific legislation and regulations are causing the price increases?

The plain truth of the matter is that if someone needs health care, they can get it (usually for free). There are many, many free clinics around the country, and hospitals are NOT ALLOWED to turn ANYONE away for lack of ID or payment. If someone truely needs health care, they can get it.

You can get health care, sure. But at what cost? If you own a small home and have a merely lower middle class existence and you are stricken with cancer, will you risk losing everything you have? Perhaps you can keep your home and your car after filing for medical bankruptcy, but will you lose any other possessions or wealth you might have?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Gov cannot even address one issue well, two is like asking a one-armed chimp to juggle two dozen chainsaws.

Sad, but true.

Americans are going to have to elect better people to office if they want these issues to be addressed. Ultimately its the voters who are at fault.

 

[drebo]

The quaint idea that we should save up in our bank account and then give the doctor a check when we have a bad cold is one thing but the average person cannot possibly save up for a major ailment that these days can potentially run hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's what health insurance is supposed to be for, not preventative care.

You don't have insurance for when your car needs an oil change or the water pump goes out...only for when something catastrophic happens. Why should health care need to be any different?

 

[drebo]

Because a very large percentage of the people who earn a living off of the health care industry, perhaps 40 or 50%, have nothing to do with actually providing health care. Rather, they push paper around. I am referring to insurance company employees, insurance brokers, benefits plan managers, medical billing specialists, and the like. Another problem is illegal immigration and also the legal immigration of poor immigrants and thus having to provide health care for immigrants who don't contribute anything to our economy that unemployed Americans could not do.



It might be good to start by looking at what other nations that don't have these kinds of problems are doing. It's just amazing that America can spend 16-17% of its GDP on health care that doesn't cover everyone and that causes a horde of other problems while other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care that covers 100% of their population. Some of those countries even have more doctors per capita than the U.S. (They don't have as many wealthy insurance execs, though--what those other countries are doing is not good for the yacht industry.)



Could you please elaborate on what exactly it is that caused health care costs to rise? What specific legislation and regulations are causing the price increases?



You can get health care, sure. But at what cost? If you own a small home and have a merely lower middle class existence and you are stricken with cancer, will you risk losing everything you have? Perhaps you can keep your home and your car after filing for medical bankruptcy, but will you lose any other possessions or wealth you might have?

I'm not going to answer any of your questions because you refuse to look at the issue objectively or rationally. I've explained it all before in various other threads. If you want the answer, go look at them.

Everything in your post is looking at symptoms, not causes.

 

[DietDrThunder]

That's what health insurance is supposed to be for, not preventative care.

You don't have insurance for when your car needs an oil change or the water pump goes out...only for when something catastrophic happens. Why should health care need to be any different?

So basically there should only be catastrophic insurance to cover major medical. How do you determine what and who is covered. I can understand catastrophic insurance, but should those who choose to abuse their bodies with cigarettes, alcohol, or drug abuse be allowed coverage?

 

[MotF Bane]

Yahct.