blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
only since Obama has taken office has healthcare become a "problem" in the eyes of the public...it is and has been a big democrat ticket agenda which is why it is on the table yet again.
I think it is safe to say the people at that protest don't feel anything is wrong with the system as it is, and compared to what is being proposed I can't say I don't agree with them.
I think it is safe to say the people at that protest don't feel anything is wrong with the system as it is, and compared to what is being proposed I can't say I don't agree with them.
The Midwest, Indiana and Illinois specifically, I think, are given credit for being the best places to practice and not worry about outrageous lawsuits.
They use Grand Jury Style hearings to determine if the malpractice cases are legit and to determine rewards. That means a group of people who only hear malpractice cases and are fluent in the laws and procedures make the decisions.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Well, in all fairness, we do need reform. Just not what the Dems are proposing. They got alot of mileage out of the "Republicans want to drop your social security" lie, so maybe this is their new mantra?
brandonbull
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2005
- 6,330
- 1,203
- 126
How exactly can we increase the number of people covered, improve coverage, and make the system cheaper?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
True to some extent, except Americans want a public option anyway, worst case it's split so it's not really radical or unlikely to happen.
Policy Options
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingU...itics/story?id=8373563
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...olls/main5280373.shtml
A public option of some sort will be passed, only question is what it'll look like.
our system is horrifically inefficient and unscientific. Not only can we insure everyone, improve coverage, and make it cheaper, but we can provide better healthcare while we are at it. The problems are that people don't realize that these problems are as bad as they are, and that our political system, or at least the people running it, are incapable of any sort of coherent action.
If you do read up on the CBO's analysis of tort reform you will see that it has had a statistically insignificant effect on health care costs. Basically, the main issue that Republicans have been shrieking about has yielded zero results.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
It has been a problem for a great many years. The public is giving it a large amount of attention now because our politicians are offering to try to do something about it.
It will be interesting to see how many of the protesters change their tune when they lose their jobs or when their insurance benefits are drastically cut back or how they will feel if they actually need to use their health insurance. Part of the problem is that these people have pea-sized brains and cannot contemplate what it would be like if they lost their jobs or otherwise had to find and pay for health insurance on their own. They cannot seriously conceive of that type of potentiality.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
We eliminate the tremendous amount of waste and inefficiency that is currently present in our system. Right now, a great many people who receive income from health care expenditures do not actually provide health care--the insurance executives, insurance company employees, benefits plans administrators, insurance brokers, marketing people, and so on. Also, some of the business entities involved distribute some of the health care dollars as profit. If we changed our system so as to eliminate them, we could save a large amount of money. Some other nations have either already done this or drastically reduced the number of these paper pushers, resulting in cost savings and efficiency gains.
Check out this video to see how other nations cover 100% of their population while spending a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ne/sickaroundtheworld/
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,502
- 1
- 81
Though I haven't marched, I consider myself a Tea Party person.
The supply of quality healthcare is limited. The demand is unlimited. This means it must be rationed in one way or another. Obamacare prescribes rationing by the State. Tea party-goers mostly favor rationing by markets.
Let me say first that there are indeed serious flaws in the current system, and that most Republicans have been missing in action on reform for decades. I give Democrats credit for trying to do something, though I disagree with nearly all of their ideas about what to do.
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.
A free market health reform proposal:
1. No tax break for employer provided health insurance.
2. Freedom to buy health insurance across state lines.
3. Tax credits to everyone to buy private catastrophic coverage, and outright subsidies to the poor and almost poor, as with the earned income tax credit.
4. Tax-free medical savings accounts to pay for routine non-catastrophic health care, including preventive and alternative medicine. Partial, not full, subsidies for the same for non-taxpayers.
5. Have malpractice suits arbitrated by a board of physicians, medical administrators and patients. Require doctors and hospitals to pay into a fund for malpractice awards. This will take contingency fee driven lawyers out of the equation.
6. Require medical service providers to hand out a rate card and post prices on the internet, prior to treatment.
In short, end the ridiculous illusion that somebody else (corporations, the government, insurance companies) pays for health care. We do. Make that explicit and competition will return to the market and drive down costs and drive up quality. Use the savings to subsidize care for the needy.
The government, for the most part, does not supply our food, clothing, or shelter. Are those less important than health care? To the extent the government did try to give us housing, with Fannie and Freddie, it helped create a crisis. Imagine what would happen to Safeway and Whole Foods if there was a grocery chain "public option" with taxpayer subsidized prices below what these stores could offer. Then imagine the choices and service at government supermarkets after the private stores go under. Imagine what would happen to innovation in the PC market if we had to buy our rigs from the government.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
The supply of quality healthcare is limited. The demand is unlimited. This means it must be rationed in one way or another. Obamacare prescribes rationing by the State. Tea party-goers mostly favor rationing by markets.
Let me say first that there are indeed serious flaws in the current system, and that most Republicans have been missing in action on reform for decades. I give Democrats credit for trying to do something, though I disagree with nearly all of their ideas about what to do.
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.
A free market health reform proposal:
1. No tax break for employer provided health insurance.
2. Freedom to buy health insurance across state lines.
3. Tax credits to everyone to buy private catastrophic coverage, and outright subsidies to the poor and almost poor, as with the earned income tax credit.
4. Tax-free medical savings accounts to pay for routine non-catastrophic health care, including preventive and alternative medicine. Partial, not full, subsidies for the same for non-taxpayers.
5. Have malpractice suits arbitrated by a board of physicians, medical administrators and patients. Require doctors and hospitals to pay into a fund for malpractice awards. This will take contingency fee driven lawyers out of the equation.
6. Require medical service providers to hand out a rate card and post prices on the internet, prior to treatment.
In short, end the ridiculous illusion that somebody else (corporations, the government, insurance companies) pays for health care. We do. Make that explicit and competition will return to the market and drive down costs and drive up quality. Use the savings to subsidize care for the needy.
The government, for the most part, does not supply our food, clothing, or shelter. Are those less important than health care? To the extent the government did try to give us housing, with Fannie and Freddie, it helped create a crisis. Imagine what would happen to Safeway and Whole Foods if there was a grocery chain "public option" with taxpayer subsidized prices below what these stores could offer. Then imagine the choices and service at government supermarkets after the private stores go under. Imagine what would happen to innovation in the PC market if we had to buy our rigs from the government.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
How can you claim that 20+% administrative costs are inefficient?
It boggles the mind, hell, we can get that up to 50% if things keep going like they have been.
brandonbull
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2005
- 6,330
- 1,203
- 126
The the solution to the responses I have received after posing this question is that the government needs to concentrate on reducing the overhead and streamlining the current system first. We don't need the government trying to invent a new system instead of fixing the current one.
I'm not too concerned about the Republicans whipping up their base. They might represent 20-25% of the nation. There were people at the rallies carrying Palin pictures. The Republicans have effectively alienated anyone who isn't a conservative fundamentalist, a racist, a birther, or any other type of ignorant.
The primary threat to the Democrats is if by some miracle, a fiscally conservative/socially liberal party is formed and gains strength. It is entirely possible to make a rational argument for fiscal conservatism and spending restraint without resorting to teabagging.
This is laughable too. So, we're supposed to lower health care costs by making these concessions to the same corporations that have been raping us fiscally for decades, so they can make MORE of a profit? Man, oh man, party of BAD ideas indeed.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter