Right now there is a system in place in the US that will be pretty similar to government health care called Medicare Advantage. How it works is that a doctor makes a deal with an insurance company and essentially buys the patient. What this means is that he becomes the patients SOLE provider. He is paid a set fee per month based on the problems the patient has ( the more problems the more money) and he pays for EVERYTHING for the patient. This includes the medication, any surgery, a hospital visit, or a consult with another specialist. An example would be a doctor in charge of 1200 patients gets paid about $300,000 a month to cover everything. This seems like a large number but when you factor in all of the medications and potential surgeries, it will make the doc about $175k a year. The problem is, if a medication isn't generic, you aren't getting it. If an MRI would be the ideal scan, hahahaha think again. If you need bilateral knee replacements, well lets just try out a chiropractor and maybe some physical therapy. These patients never see a bill but because of how the system works, are definitely not getting some of the care they need.
This will most likely be how our new system works. It will also allow some doctors to get RICH RICH RICH based on how well they can code and bill and some doctors in the poor house because the are, well, trying to be good doctor and billing strait as an arrow. _________________ Liquid Force
Spy Optic
Globe Shoes
1. It's not a right. Nothing that requires the service of others can be considered a right because it would infringe on the rights of those that have to provide it. Another person's labor cannot be considered someone else's right.
2. It's unconstitutional. Nowhere is it mentioned, therefore the 10th amendment should apply. Just because this is ignored in most other legislations doesn't make it anymore constitutional. If state's want to give it a shot they can and have. Most have to abandon it because it risks bankrupting the state. The only reason the federal government could pull it off is they don't have a balanced budget and their financial polices would be considered fraudulent by any standards other than their own.
3. Many of the current problems with health care can be attributed to government intervention in the first place. Government intervention always has unforeseen consequences that the government then blames on the free market, and demands more government intervention to fix it. Health care is no different.
4. The government is not the proper organization to be providing our healthcare. They run very few things effectively, and turn simple task into bureaucratic nightmares. Most of the programs end up costing much more than they original say. However, they know that all they have to do is get the program started and it will never go away.
5. Our government should have no part in such a large part of our economy. Communism failed for a reason. What is one area where the government competes with private industries and wins without using their power to give them the upper hand?
6. We can't afford it. Ultimately this is the most important. Even if you could address all the other problems, we still can't afford it. They say they are going to tax the rich, but if there is any more money to be stolen from the rich it should go to funding programs that are already underfunded. It is ridiculous to have so many underfunded programs, and yet continue to add more. The welfare state (and our empire) are bankrupting our country and devaluing the dollar. All these programs are aimed to help the lower class, yet they result in inflation and the devaluing or the dollar which ultimately affects the lower classes the most.
I think there are definite problems with the healthcare system that need reform. However, I think the current approach is the worst possible solution. The cause of the problems should be examined much more thoroughly as well as potential solutions. Any solution should be heavily scrutinized, yet I feel it is getting rushed through because the Democrats have control and feel they may lose it next fall. Small changes should be made, so there results can then be studied.
1. It's not a right. Nothing that requires the service of others can be considered a right because it would infringe on the rights of those that have to provide it. Another person's labor cannot be considered someone else's right.
Where do you see any legislation stating that doctors are not going to be paid. If you are referring to taxes, well then f-it. I'm done paying for the Iraq war which I didn't want any part of. And realestate taxes. I don't have kids in school. Don with those too.
Nooga678 wrote:
2. It's unconstitutional. Nowhere is it mentioned, therefore the 10th amendment should apply. Just because this is ignored in most other legislations doesn't make it anymore constitutional. If state's want to give it a shot they can and have. Most have to abandon it because it risks bankrupting the state. The only reason the federal government could pull it off is they don't have a balanced budget and their financial polices would be considered fraudulent by any standards other than their own.
Neither is education. But we want to stay a top world power so it's something we have to do. Just like HC.
Nooga678 wrote:
3. Many of the current problems with health care can be attributed to government intervention in the first place. Government intervention always has unforeseen consequences that the government then blames on the free market, and demands more government intervention to fix it. Health care is no different.
I would say it has much more to do with insurance companies mucking up the system.
Nooga678 wrote:
4. The government is not the proper organization to be providing our healthcare. They run very few things effectively, and turn simple task into bureaucratic nightmares. Most of the programs end up costing much more than they original say. However, they know that all they have to do is get the program started and it will never go away.
And the insurance companies have brought costs down. Since we only pay the highest amounts for HC in the world.
Nooga678 wrote:
5. Our government should have no part in such a large part of our economy. Communism failed for a reason. What is one area where the government competes with private industries and wins without using their power to give them the upper hand?
Socialist governments are flourishing in Europe. Compare standards of living of European nations vs. the USA. Hell compare Canada to the USA.
Nooga678 wrote:
6. We can't afford it. Ultimately this is the most important. Even if you could address all the other problems, we still can't afford it. They say they are going to tax the rich, but if there is any more money to be stolen from the rich it should go to funding programs that are already underfunded. It is ridiculous to have so many underfunded programs, and yet continue to add more. The welfare state (and our empire) are bankrupting our country and devaluing the dollar. All these programs are aimed to help the lower class, yet they result in inflation and the devaluing or the dollar which ultimately affects the lower classes the most.
It would save monies and provide a greater level of HC. Atleast that is how it has worked in every other country. If it doesn't well then this country as a whole needs to take a real hard look at itself. Greatest country in the world can't pull off what most other civilized ones can?
Nooga678 wrote:
I think there are definite problems with the healthcare system that need reform. However, I think the current approach is the worst possible solution. The cause of the problems should be examined much more thoroughly as well as potential solutions. Any solution should be heavily scrutinized, yet I feel it is getting rushed through because the Democrats have control and feel they may lose it next fall. Small changes should be made, so there results can then be studied.
I say push through Universal Health Care. Non of this other watered down bs.[/b] _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
I think it goes without saying that our current medical system is mucked up..I think the doctors, the lawyers and the insurance company have been on the gravy train...On the flipside we need to make minor changes until the issue is wrangled under control. Destroying the system that has been extremely good at providing fast and reliable car doesnt make much sense to me... _________________ You know you own someone when you can agitate them enough to quote you in their signature.
I think it goes without saying that our current medical system is mucked up..I think the doctors, the lawyers and the insurance company have been on the gravy train...On the flipside we need to make minor changes until the issue is wrangled under control. Destroying the system that has been extremely good at providing fast and reliable car doesnt make much sense to me...
I say start with Tort reform. The reason the democrats are pushing so hard is that under a republican regime nothing gets accomplished when it comes HC. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
Things do need to change but there should not be an absolute free healthcare system. It would completely cripple the government economically. The debt would be so large that our standing as the richest and most powerful country may change. Currently people without insurance and with no income use the emergency room as a walk in clinic. THIS needs to change. We had parents bring in their children for a cough because they cannot take them to the pediatrician. In a public hospital by law we have to see this person even though they have zero intention to pay. We even had a Hispanic woman bring her child in to have their ears pierced (which we didn't do). My job as instructed by the doctor was to tell the non emergency cases "do not come to the emergency room again unless it is an emergency. We are not a walk in clinic and you are taking a bed from someone who really needs it." He told me to say it in a stern/pissed off voice to boot and honestly it felt amazing. The peoples reactions were priceless. _________________ Liquid Force
Spy Optic
Globe Shoes
1. It's not a right. Nothing that requires the service of others can be considered a right because it would infringe on the rights of those that have to provide it. Another person's labor cannot be considered someone else's right.
Every time I hear this talking point, I ask why education, police, and fire fighting services are ignored. When you call 9/11 nobody asks for insurance first before they respond to the call. And you don't get a bill from the police or fire department after they respond to your call. Students aren't asked to pay before they can enter a public school. And yet these services largely consist of another person's labour.
Things do need to change but there should not be an absolute free healthcare system. It would completely cripple the government economically. The debt would be so large that our standing as the richest and most powerful country may change. Currently people without insurance and with no income use the emergency room as a walk in clinic. THIS needs to change. We had parents bring in their children for a cough because they cannot take them to the pediatrician. In a public hospital by law we have to see this person even though they have zero intention to pay. We even had a Hispanic woman bring her child in to have their ears pierced (which we didn't do). My job as instructed by the doctor was to tell the non emergency cases "do not come to the emergency room again unless it is an emergency. We are not a walk in clinic and you are taking a bed from someone who really needs it." He told me to say it in a stern/pissed off voice to boot and honestly it felt amazing. The peoples reactions were priceless.
Do you not suppose that if people who are using the emergency room for nonemergency had access to HC, that they would not have to resort to the only available alternative. That being the ER, which just happens to be the most expensive as well. As for HC breaking the bank, that is pure assumption. I assume it will save money, assumption based on what we currently pay for HC vs. the rest of industrialized nations. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
microman, You are mixing natural rights with legal rights. Or I guess I should have stipulated in my orginal post that I was refering to natural rights.
From my expericence in ER's, the people using it as a clinic won't stop just because they have healthcare. They don't look like the kinda of people that are going to pick a doctor, make an appointment, etc.. This is just speculation and I hope I am wrong, but it is just and guess based on my observations.
microman, You are mixing natural rights with legal rights. Or I guess I should have stipulated in my orginal post that I was refering to natural rights.
From my expericence in ER's, the people using it as a clinic won't stop just because they have healthcare. They don't look like the kinda of people that are going to pick a doctor, make an appointment, etc.. This is just speculation and I hope I am wrong, but it is just and guess based on my observations.
I highly doubt that if a person could simply schedule an appointment. see a doctor, and be in and out in an hour,that they would elect to spend half a day sitting in a waiting room. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
"In a public hospital by law we have to see this person even though they have zero intention to pay" obviously health care is a right in this nation.
There are good systems of universal health care that do not have waiting lines, why didn't John check any of those out?
We should have a two tier system, where those that don't work, go to the free clinic where they do wait in line, for hours and hours, they don't have anything else to do anyway. Then, the people that do work will have an efficiently run system and won't have to wait in line.
The government doesn't waist millions, the government waists billions and billions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1tv9lZMA1c _________________ Live to Ride, ride to live
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 439 City: Lake Blackshear
Posted: Nov 06, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:
""In a public hospital by law we have to see this person even though they have zero intention to pay"obviously health care is a right in this nation"
The sue happy world has made it that way and I totally disagree that it should be a right. There is also another one, in medicine there are two types of patients, medical and trauma. To cover trauma every ER is by law required to treat a trauma patient to the fullest extent of its ability.
I can't argue that the ER should not be used as a clinic. This is due to majority of ERs have adapted to this and opened what they call fast track. Specifically for the common cold and minor bruises. In the area I worked in this system worked great, most of the people who utilized it were insured and we had an average 40 minute turn around. It was also money being make because the unit is ran by a single PA. Why not utilize it for your child when you have a three or four day wait to see your doctor?
On the other hand we do have problems in our actual ERs with patients who exceed what fast track is able to do. They are uninsured and we see them about once a week. Some hospitals are hurting because of these people, because they spend their money on alcohol, smoke two packs per day after their free diagnosis of COPD, won't take their meds, ect. Heck I even worked a code on a guy that simply got tired of going to dialysis so he quit going . Now the government wants claim healthcare is a right despite your frequent bad decision making and stubbornness? I disagree, but I am not going to argue with the ones who think other wise, because part of it is going to be your damn tax dollars anyway so you have a right to voice and throw away your money.
The icing on the cake though is the government thinks they can step in and fix it. People healthcare professionals can't even fix this so why do you think the owners of the crutched medicare/medicaid can? I laugh when I hear people talk about how much better healthcare will be with the government plan. The only thing hospitals aren't limited on are patients. What do you think is going to happen when everyone has a card? Of course people are going to visit the ER, the days of having an Emergency Room for just emergencies are over, but giving out free passes gives them more incentive to take their non-emergency crap to the ER thinking that the ER can work a miracle and fix their problem. Look, there are people who call the ambulance because their ear hurts from them being out chilling on the street in 15 degree weather all night (This person had a home with heating and A/C) or because it is ride to the corner they work for prostitution . Either way the ER will always be the first alternative due to it's wait time being less. Also, don't get confused with private practice and public. A private practice does not have to agree to see you by law. Lets not for get a few years ago when medicare cut its' coverage. Many private practiced dropped their medicare patients and this has hurt emergency services even more. Like I said pass out your money to these people. Sure they are ones who needs it but the frequent flyers and general abuse is going to ruin the system as a whole. As a result get use to extended wait times. The average wait time to be seen in some of the larger ERs is already bumping 5 hours.
I didn't mean to right a book but this is just a some of the observations I have made during my 4 years working holidays and nights, some in the ER, but mainly in the back of an ambulance. I have wrote several papers on this subject as well for my undergrad, but I am no where near having a full grasp of everything. In other words I can't tell you how to fix it but so far the first government attempts hasn't helped the system. I hate saying it that way because what is really important is the patients, but if you run the system in the dirt you have no healthcare. If this passes it will probably lead to something that is actually one step further than what ilubronix was talking about. Concierge medicine is something that actually exist today and the idea is you pay your personal doctor up front yearly. The down fall is that they will probably be a separation between healthcare providers and you can pay prices that will make todays insurance look great, or you can stick with the free healthcare and fight with the masses to receive care from the few physicians that will be left.
buckthis, I loved the end of that video. Classic government approach. We f'd something up, but with more money and regulation we can fix it.
Here is a question: Why doesn't someone or a group start an insurance company that is extremely affordable compared to the rest? It seems the market is demanding it, so you would think they would instantly get the majority of the country's business? The answer to this question provides insight into why the cost are currently out of control, and it isn't capitalism or the free market. I have read a few things on how government intervention has caused a lot of the problems, but haven't really had time to read up on it to the level I would like. I oppose it for other reasons, so just haven't dug that deep. The thing I read was about government meddling in the 70's that lead to HMO's, which causes a lot of the high prices.
To me health care reform should be about eliminating restrictions that keep the free market from allowing the price to set its self. This may also drive down the cost of regular Doctor visits back to the point where they can be paid for out of pocket and insurance can go back to protecting you against unforseen medical expenses. You don't use your car insurance to pay for your oil change, and you don't use your homeowners insurance to replace your HVAC filter. There is a doctor in rural TN that opened a practice and refused to accept insurance. It allowed him to keep cost low and a routine visit only cost $35, which is about in line with many co-pays. Instead people see a problem and instantly lean on the government to fix it.
Nooga Low cost insurance isn't going to work. A major part of the problem now is that insurance companies don't pay decent reimbursement rates. So if they are not incurring high costs for services (reimbursement rates) what is happening to the high premiums? What is a doctor to do when he/she knows they will only be paid $15, 20, maybe $40 for some visits.
That video is ridiculous, why can't the Government hire better auditors. Seriously, establish some oversight and the cost incurred will pay for itself in a heartbeat.
If we could eliminate the waste between medicare and some of the military contracts (very much a different beast though), this country could drastically reduct it's deficit. _________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
If doctor's only get reimbursed my copay or less, why not eliminate insurance for just a regular visit?
If the free market was allowed to work doctors would be forced to compete by lowering there prices. Why would you go to the doctor that charges $100 to see him, when you could go to one that charges $50. You would be allowed to shop around across the country for the insurance policy you like best. Insurance companies that paid doctor's crap would not be accepted by many doctors, therefore fewer people would buy these plans which would force them out of business or to change their reimbursement policy. Separating the tie between employer and insurance company would help as well. Give people the portion of their insurance that you cover and allow them to go shop for the plan that best fits them.
why would you go to a doctor that charges 100 when you can go to one who charges 50? Was that a serious question?
really?
There are some things you should never bargain shop for. A tattoo is one of them. Another would be medical services. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Yes. It was a serious question. The one that was charging $100 would have to be offering something better in a free market to ensure people would pay that difference. Maybe he is just in the trendy part of town and has a nice office. It doesn't necissarly mean his services are any better. If I had a bad cold and just wanted some medication, I would definitely go to a cheaper doctor. If I had something seriously wrong, I probably would spring a little more.
So you really think that is an absurd question? There are many things you should not skimp on if you can afford to do so. However, in a free market you get to decide how much more you are willing to pay and if higher prices are worth the increase in benefit. What is absurd is that you bring up an issue of quality, yet you support the government taking over health care.
I don't think that people who could afford to pay double would mind, if they are even semi intelligent.
If my son needs even a visit for something as mild as a cough, you better believe we aren't f'ing bargain shopping for the cheapest doctor. That's asinine and insane. You bargain shop for cars, you bargain shop for watches or cell phone plans... I think that only a person with little thought of introspection would bargain shop for a doctor. Have some perspective...
yes, It's a serious question. You might actually have something seriously wrong, but now you open yourself to the possibility that the bargain doctor (Hi everybody, I'm Doctor Nick!) might miss it. Maybe you only think you have a bad cold, but you actually have pneumonia, or a lung infection, or god forbid, leukemia or something else that starts with symptoms like fatigue, etc.
I don't see many europeans who have free healthcare complaining about their situation, and they seem healthier than we do, for what that's worth. Gov't provided health care doesn't concern me at all. I think it is unrealistic that you think the same free market principles that apply to buying a car would also apply to medical services. That's just not even close to my way of thinking, personally. Maybe other people would seek to save a few dollars with their or their kid's health care, but I have different priorities. Nothing is as valuable as health. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Europeans are healthier because they eat less McDonalds and walk more. Fact.
Let's eliminate windshield-hung handicap cards for fat people so they stop parking two feet from the front door of the grocery store and walk instead. That'll save the gov. a couple hundred million a year in plastic cards and printing services.
Also, lets have a gov. funded program that puts you on a scale prior to purchasing an automobile. If you fail, the dealership should be required to purchase you a 10-speed bike. This will save our O-Zone and prevent those earthquakes us Californians are all so Bubb Rubbing worried about.
Sounds good right? Lets just make it law! Government intervention could go on infinitely.
Please don't vote in more government payroll. Who really wants to pay for queers with AIDs and typhoid-infected illegals?
I do. I think that homosexuals with aids are human beings who deserve compassion. I don't want to live in a society where we throw people, any people, out to die in poverty in the street. But that's just me, and my bleeding liberal heart. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
If doctor's only get reimbursed my copay or less, why not eliminate insurance for just a regular visit?
If the free market was allowed to work doctors would be forced to compete by lowering there prices. Why would you go to the doctor that charges $100 to see him, when you could go to one that charges $50. You would be allowed to shop around across the country for the insurance policy you like best. Insurance companies that paid doctor's crap would not be accepted by many doctors, therefore fewer people would buy these plans which would force them out of business or to change their reimbursement policy. Separating the tie between employer and insurance company would help as well. Give people the portion of their insurance that you cover and allow them to go shop for the plan that best fits them.
You have to factor in the $150,000+ of overhead costs. If competition was based on the lowest costs you would have no general practicioners/PCPs. Besides, healthcare is a lot more complex than that alone.
Part of the biggest problem, in terms of costs is that people think because they have insurance they are covered. If we were to provided everyone with insurance it would do nothing to help the overall health of this nation. Costs are high, because so few are willing to be healthy. Instead, they seek a barrage of pills to aid their symptoms. Those pills are absurdly expensive to develop.
I have no problem providing some sort of catastrophic coverage for someone who breaks an arm, or blows their knee out and can't work because of it. But, I have huge issue covering people who continue to make poor choices, poor lifestyle decisions, and drive the cost of health care because of it.
Now, the catch is, you'll never teach or find enough people with the motivation to live at least a moderately healthy lifestyle. Unless we start implementing a fat tax things aren't going to change. _________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
what would entail a poor lifestyle decision?
would it include high risk activities such as wakeboarding, skateboarding, bungee jumping, rock climbing, motorcycle riding? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
what would entail a poor lifestyle decision?
would it include high risk activities such as wakeboarding, skateboarding, bungee jumping, rock climbing, motorcycle riding?
Partly, but most likely health injuries that would stem from those types of activities would be temporary and not chronic. Additionally, those activities (key word) lead to better overall cardio-vascular health which would somewhat offset any potential issues with obesity, heart disease etc.
Someone choosing to eat poorly and not exercise makes a decision on a daily basis to not be healthy (whether it is a sub-concisous, conscious or purely ignorant decision). _________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
The major issues with this "Reform" is the lack of... It's just additional mandated spending without addressing the major issues that plague health care delivery in this country. I'd be willing to wipe the slate clean and create a system similar to Japan (including the fat tax). But the lobby for the status quo, both insurers and labor, won't allow a true reform to happen. As such, this legislation is destined to be gutted just as the attempt in California a few years ago. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
My point is, if you are going to tell other people what lifestyle to live because of the health risk, do you not open yourself to OUR activities, which can be high risk and injury, being put on the "no insure" list? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
My point is, if you are going to tell other people what lifestyle to live because of the health risk, do you not open yourself to OUR activities, which can be high risk and injury, being put on the "no insure" list?
I think the point is obesity even more than smoking has continuous and long term costs, whereas a blown knee can be corrected and is for the most part a one time cost. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
sure, sure. But if you blow your knee out casing the wake, then you get it "fixed," would you lose health insurance if you continued to wakeboard?
See where this could go?
Instead of banning activities or making weight requirements, can we just tax fatty foods and use that money to pay for that part of health care? In NY, and I believe nationwide, there is no tax on food. Maybe that should be changed to no tax on fatty junk foods?
But then, the majority of the people who buy carbohydrate rich processed foods are poor, so we would be taxing the poor again. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Things do need to change but there should not be an absolute free healthcare system. It would completely cripple the government economically. The debt would be so large that our standing as the richest and most powerful country may change. Currently people without insurance and with no income use the emergency room as a walk in clinic. THIS needs to change. We had parents bring in their children for a cough because they cannot take them to the pediatrician. In a public hospital by law we have to see this person even though they have zero intention to pay. We even had a Hispanic woman bring her child in to have their ears pierced (which we didn't do). My job as instructed by the doctor was to tell the non emergency cases "do not come to the emergency room again unless it is an emergency. We are not a walk in clinic and you are taking a bed from someone who really needs it." He told me to say it in a stern/pissed off voice to boot and honestly it felt amazing. The peoples reactions were priceless.
Do you not suppose that if people who are using the emergency room for nonemergency had access to HC, that they would not have to resort to the only available alternative. That being the ER, which just happens to be the most expensive as well. As for HC breaking the bank, that is pure assumption. I assume it will save money, assumption based on what we currently pay for HC vs. the rest of industrialized nations.
I hope that it will allow nonemergencies to goto the proper doctor, but who knows. We have no idea what the actual system will be so this might not be the case. If they still have to pay a $20-30 copay then they will STILL goto the ER. What really sucks is that when these people come in, we still have to fill out the same amount of paperwork as we would for any other patient. It takes up our time, and takes up the time for patients that need our help. What is great is making these people sit for hours and hours, it is pretty much our only form of payback. They get brought back but the ER works on a triage basis. We take care of the people who need help the most first. This one guy brought both of his grandkids in for a cold and probably waited 6 hours in the room. He then pulled me aside to ask if we would bring them food, and I told him that we are not a hotel. If you want to get them food go out and get something, and just walked away. You know he went home and complained how poor the care was in the ER, but hopefully this will stop him from bringing them in again.
Wow I just went off on a tangent, but my theory is, if copays still exist then people will still take advantage of the system. _________________ Liquid Force
Spy Optic
Globe Shoes
cameraboy, honestly I think the risks should be pooled. Active healthy individuals should pay less for health insurance while people who do not invest in their personal health should pay more. Taxing food is incredibly regressive and punishes the whole for the benefit of those who are unhealthy. I conceptually hate punishing those who are "good actors" in order to correct the actions of the "bad actors."
I believe that if you truly want to reform healthcare the Federal Government should:
1.) Allow tax write offs/breaks for individual insurance policies
2.) Allow insurers to compete across state lines
3.) Supercede state issued mandates for a set of national mandates (relates to competition)
4.) Cost transparency (Most people don't know ahead of time what each procedure, visit, test and option costs). Even if the insurance picks up the cost people should know just like we want to know when a mechanic is working on our cars.
This won't solve all the problems but it WILL significantly reduce the cost of Health Care Insurance and encourage some uninsured to pick up insurance for the tax breaks.
Personally Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic medical insurance make a ton of sense and should also be explored in this national debate.
If we are going the direction of a mandated insurance my points should be addressed and currently they have not been. And most insurers will tell you the current legislation will bankrupt the system in the first 3-5 years thus requiring another industry in need of Federal bailouts. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Taxing food is incredibly regressive and punishes the whole for the benefit of those who are unhealthy. I conceptually hate punishing those who are "good actors" in order to correct the actions of the "bad actors."
Howso? don't buy twinkies or cheetos, and you don't get taxed.
If you are going to charge "active, healthy" people less, are you also going to charge people more based on family health history? If my father gets cancer at age 60, do my rates then go up too? How are you going to monitor people's exercise and lifestyle habbits? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 141 City: Near South Bend
Posted: Nov 08, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject:
I think I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it IF members of Congress were on the same health plan. Apparently it's not good enough for them though.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. Now the government wants claim healthcare is a right despite your frequent bad decision making and stubbornness? I disagree, but I am not going to argue with the ones who think other wise, because part of it is going to be your damn tax dollars anyway so you have a right to voice and throw away your money.
. Either way the ER will always be the first alternative due to it's wait time being less. Also, don't get confused with private practice and public. A private practice does not have to agree to see you by law. Lets not for get a few years ago when medicare cut its' coverage. Many private practiced dropped their medicare patients and this has hurt emergency services even more. Like I said pass out your money to these people. Sure they are ones who needs it but the frequent flyers and general abuse is going to ruin the system as a whole. As a result get use to extended wait times. The average wait time to be seen in some of the larger ERs is already bumping 5 hours.
