Republicans are offering healthcare suggestions

[charrison]

That hasn't happened in Texas.

I am not sure what the total effects of this bill are, but there apparently has caused more doctors to move to the state.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Let me guess. The Republicans' new plan can be distilled down to:

"Don't get sick and if you get sick, die quickly."

Of course, whatever plan they come up with will help the wealthy people in this country become even wealthier.

 

[FuzzyBee]

your an idiot

Oh, the irony.

 

[Zebo]

Let me guess. The Republicans' new plan can be distilled down to:

"Don't get sick and if you get sick, die quickly."

Of course, whatever plan they come up with will help the wealthy people in this country become even wealthier.

Listen to it. It's a joke and my hyperbole was not far of the mark.

 

[Jhhnn]

All that sounds peachy, Fern, except that in the one state that's adopted tort reform, Texas, none of it has actually happened. their costs are just as high as everybody else's.

I'll agree with Zebo, maybe a first, wrt single payer. The sooner we move in that direction, the better off we'll be. And it's not like we have to re-invent the wheel, "Start Over!" like repubs want- there are many models and flavors of single payer we can emulate, like the French system, probably the world's best.

Saying the govt can't do it well is basically saying we can't do it as well as the French, that we're constitutionally incapable. Judging from the headset of some of the posters here, (not you, Fern) that might be too accurate for comfort.

 

[Zebo]

Come on - We agree more than that, least I do w U. Anyway by "Start over" they mean in 20 years like last time. There is definity some altruism from my POV wanting people insured, taking across state lines and though jobs transitions but it also makes sense from a internationally competitive and cost standpoint. ONLY thing holding it up is hundreds of billions of profiteering at the top. When one CEO makes 150 million he is going to fight tooth and nail (business expense also paid by you) to keep it that way.

 

[Rainsford]

Let's suppose for a moment (and I don't believe what I say next) that Republicans are genuinely interested in improving health care.

...

Well that's the major problem, as far as I'm concerned. Republicans DON'T want to improve health care, at least not for everyone.

This debate is ultimately kind of pointless, since it's not two different approaches to the same problem, it's two different problems. Health care for everyone isn't even remotely something Republicans are trying to achieve, so debate doesn't really seem possible.

 

[Hacp]

There is only one sane plan for health care reform. If you can't afford health care, you don't get any health care. Just like in a supermarket. If you can't afford the best cut of steak, you can't just walk out of the store with it. Same simple rule should apply to health care. Keep it simple.

 

[charrison]

Well that's the major problem, as far as I'm concerned. Republicans DON'T want to improve health care, at least not for everyone.

That is just nonsense. But it is the talking points for the dems, so that is to be expected.

This debate is ultimately kind of pointless, since it's not two different approaches to the same problem, it's two different problems. Health care for everyone isn't even remotely something Republicans are trying to achieve, so debate doesn't really seem possible.

Yes the solutions to the problem are quit different, so it is going to be quite difficult to find common ground. That of course does not mean no reform is wanted.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is only one sane plan for health care reform. If you can't afford health care, you don't get any health care. Just like in a supermarket. If you can't afford the best cut of steak, you can't just walk out of the store with it. Same simple rule should apply to health care. Keep it simple.

With any luck at all, you'll someday die of a perfectly curable condition, being unable to pay for treatment...

"Sorry, Hacp, but if you can't afford triple bypass surgery, we suggest that you put your affairs in order and prepare yourself for the afterlife. Alternatively, we can euthanize you now, for a small fee..."

 

[Craig234]

There is only one sane plan for health care reform. If you can't afford health care, you don't get any health care. Just like in a supermarket. If you can't afford the best cut of steak, you can't just walk out of the store with it. Same simple rule should apply to health care. Keep it simple.

Fix the economy so *everyone* can afford healthcare, and you might have a point. Return to the days of impoverished masses who were disposable? No.

Funny enough, though, you *do* have a theoretical point you hint at even if you don't know it.

We have not really addressed in this society the limits of expensive healthcare as a benefit.

What if they invent a treatment many need tomorrow that costs $100 million to use? The wealth can afford it - and our country can't afdford it as a benefit.

RIght now, the sky seems to be the limit for the cost of needed treatment. It's nice to prefer that.

5% of Medicare patients are said to need 50% of the costs. It doesn't seem to me we have really addressed the question how to deal with expenseive care.

When the government tries to help with transportation, yiou might get busses, not limos; they don't cover some areas and might run once an hour, and not 24 hours.

When the government tries to help with housing, it's usually relatively poor housing, not mansions.

But we don't seem to have addressed the issue that clearly of how to deal with expensive care. Costs a million dolars, we spend a million dollars.

I'd like to do that. But maybe, at least, we need some effort put into how to increase affordable care, lowering the cost - something medical researchers might not be financially incented to do currently.

 

[Soltis]

It's hard to even imagine that humanity has lived ages before even the idea of healthcare existed. It's really one of those things that pulls on everyone's heartstrings. Nobody wants to admit it but by george somebody's got to! theres no way we can afford to pay for everything for everyone regardless of circumstance. imo one of the best things the average person can do is at least appreciate all the care we have already(and honestly if people did that we would probably be able to afford healthcare for everyone because people who appreciated our way of life wouldn't do things like abuse drugs and needlessly get in all kinds of dangerous situations that cost so much money to deal with). A good example would probably be that we'd be able to pay for his triple bypass if we didnt have to spend so much on Tom, Dick and Harry who have been in the ER countless times due to their own drunk driving. I know in the end its probably impossible to have every single American be that way, but it seems to just go around in circles. Thats just my take on the situation anyway.

 

[Hacp]

Fix the economy so *everyone* can afford healthcare, and you might have a point. Return to the days of impoverished masses who were disposable? No.

Funny enough, though, you *do* have a theoretical point you hint at even if you don't know it.

We have not really addressed in this society the limits of expensive healthcare as a benefit.

What if they invent a treatment many need tomorrow that costs $100 million to use? The wealth can afford it - and our country can't afdford it as a benefit.

RIght now, the sky seems to be the limit for the cost of needed treatment. It's nice to prefer that.

5% of Medicare patients are said to need 50% of the costs. It doesn't seem to me we have really addressed the question how to deal with expenseive care.

When the government tries to help with transportation, yiou might get busses, not limos; they don't cover some areas and might run once an hour, and not 24 hours.

When the government tries to help with housing, it's usually relatively poor housing, not mansions.

But we don't seem to have addressed the issue that clearly of how to deal with expensive care. Costs a million dolars, we spend a million dollars.

I'd like to do that. But maybe, at least, we need some effort put into how to increase affordable care, lowering the cost - something medical researchers might not be financially incented to do currently.

Basically thats up to the individual whether he or she wants to spend the money for luxuries like living an extra few months. The only problems with cost right now are the ones associated with government liabilities such as medicare and medicaid.

Also, there is that insurance monopoly which we can fix by opening insurance across state lines. We also need to bust the AMA which has a monopoly on medical schools. Other than that and general dereuglation of the industry, nothing much should be done.

 

[Xellos2099]

It is always a wonder why people always think the prices of health care is too high, we must have insurance service to pay for it instead of thinking WHY the heath care cost is so high and think of way to lower the price so health insurance won't be needed.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is always a wonder why people always think the prices of health care is too high, we must have insurance service to pay for it instead of thinking WHY the heath care cost is so high and think of way to lower the price so health insurance won't be needed.

conceptually, group insurance spreads the costs across a larger group and across time, as well. Statistically, some will need more care than others, regardless of the reasons, some will need it when they're young, some when they're old. Some will need very little. There's really no way to know for sure, life being what it is.

So having insurance means you're covered when and if the need arises. It also means that the healthiest help pay the expenses of those who aren't. Just the way it works, like any kind of insurance.

The cost of restoring badly injured people to productive lives can be very high, as can the cost of a variety of treatments undertaken for any number of reasons. Transplants. Heart surgery. Chemotherapy for cancer. If everybody saved enough money to cover themselves for all the possibilities, it'd be an extreme waste of liquidity, and it wouldn't even begin to cover them as young adults. If you don't have a few $100K tucked away for emergencies that may never arise, you're screwed if they do, without insurance.

And the whole bit about how we spend 50% of medicare on 5% of patients is a bit disingenuous. Unless we die suddenly or refuse care, that'll be each and every one of us at the end of our lives, where extreme measures are used to prolong it... That 5% isn't the same people all the time, not by a longshot. People in an EOL situation would probably refuse treatment if it meant preserving their family's financial well being but have trouble extending that to the country's financial well being... that abstraction is apparently too great in many situations, particularly if one is fighting for life itself...

 

[Craig234]

conceptually, group insurance spreads the costs across a larger group and across time, as well. Statistically, some will need more care than others, regardless of the reasons, some will need it when they're young, some when they're old. Some will need very little. There's really no way to know for sure, life being what it is.

So having insurance means you're covered when and if the need arises. It also means that the healthiest help pay the expenses of those who aren't. Just the way it works, like any kind of insurance.

The cost of restoring badly injured people to productive lives can be very high, as can the cost of a variety of treatments undertaken for any number of reasons. Transplants. Heart surgery. Chemotherapy for cancer. If everybody saved enough money to cover themselves for all the possibilities, it'd be an extreme waste of liquidity, and it wouldn't even begin to cover them as young adults. If you don't have a few $100K tucked away for emergencies that may never arise, you're screwed if they do, without insurance.

And the whole bit about how we spend 50% of medicare on 5% of patients is a bit disingenuous. Unless we die suddenly or refuse care, that'll be each and every one of us at the end of our lives, where extreme measures are used to prolong it... That 5% isn't the same people all the time, not by a longshot. People in an EOL situation would probably refuse treatment if it meant preserving their family's financial well being but have trouble extending that to the country's financial well being... that abstraction is apparently too great in many situations, particularly if one is fighting for life itself...

'Disengenuous' is an offensive and excessive word for you to make that otherwise reasonable point.

Further illustrating what's behind it isn't showing it was disingenuous, unless you inferred more than was said.

Consider a... less disengenous phrase, to borrow the excessive definition to make the point - something like 'easily misunderstood', that doesn't imply bad intent

Not everyone is part of that 5% - but many are, over time. It simply reflect what you said - that in a given year, 5% of people are at a point needing that extra care.

The point is still valid - even if you are fine to ensure that it's not misunderstood as meaning only 5% of the population fit into the 50%, when far more do over time.

 

[Jhhnn]

I' apologize, Craig. I'm accustomed to that particular 5% vs 50% statistic being used erroneously to support points of view other than your own, which I see as reasonable.

 

[Throckmorton]

It is disingenuous, because it's purposely misleading people about the nature and purpose of insurance.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Just browsing this thread. This is the most liberalist bullshit forum on the internet i've ever seen. You people are flat out retarded.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just browsing this thread. This is the most liberalist bullshit forum on the internet i've ever seen. You people are flat out retarded.

Just confessing you're out of your depth, or what? If you have something to add, please do so. If that's all you have, I suppose we'll just have to take it for what it's worth.

 

[First]

Just browsing this thread. This is the most liberalist bullshit forum on the internet i've ever seen. You people are flat out retarded.

This board is more conservative/libertarian than progressive/liberal. Read up kiddo.

 

[sportage]

All talk!!! Only two democratic administrations have attempted to take action beyond the talk. Republicans have no desire, other than more talk talk talk talk. Doesnt take much to figure that out. Just ask Senator Grassley.

 

[ebaycj]

All that sounds peachy, Fern, except that in the one state that's adopted tort reform, Texas, none of it has actually happened. their costs are just as high as everybody else's.

I'll agree with Zebo, maybe a first, wrt single payer. The sooner we move in that direction, the better off we'll be. And it's not like we have to re-invent the wheel, "Start Over!" like repubs want- there are many models and flavors of single payer we can emulate, like the French system, probably the world's best.

Saying the govt can't do it well is basically saying we can't do it as well as the French, that we're constitutionally incapable. Judging from the headset of some of the posters here, (not you, Fern) that might be too accurate for comfort.

Illinois has tort reform as well. It was just as ineffective here as in TX.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Here is how you solve the problem of universal coverage. Everyone must learn to speak spanish fluently, dye their hair black, brown colored contact lenses, and get spray on tans. If sick or injured, go to the emergency room with no identification, and only speak in spanish. The hospitals by law can't refuse you treatment so you'll get the treatment you need and won't owe a cent. Make sure you fill out any paperwork in spanish and to not put your correct information on the medical forms.

I'm really only being half serious. I have a friend who is a emergincy room RN at John Peter Smith hospital in Fort Worth. The hospital is flooded 24/7 with illegal immagrants needing medical treatment, who don't pay a dime, but know that they will not be refused treatment for lack of payment. The nurses and staff at JPS try to get billing information from the patients or patients parents, but they know that any information they receive is pretty much bogus. BUT, if a white or African American is treated at the hospital and they have no means to pay, the hospital can gather enough information to bill these individuals, and if not payed, will turn the information over to collection agencies.

If you truely want Universal health coverage for everyone then outlaw medical insurance, turn over all hospitals to the government, make doctors, nurses, and staff government workers, charge no one for medical services, and make the top 1% of tax payers pay for the system.

I don't really like this idea, but if you want socialized medicine, taking the private sector out of the medical field would be one of the ways to provide universal coverage.

 

[Pens1566]

Couldn't see the vid ... let me guess, tax cuts?