I could possibly have been wrong.

[ASPCA4EVER]

I agree that our current system is deeply flawed and prohibitively expensive.

Can the government fix the situation? As it looks now, the answer is no. Perhaps when the middle class can no longer afford health care, then we will insist that something effective be done.

And you think that we can afford it now...REALLY

 

[PLC1]

And you think that we can afford it now...REALLY

Only so long as we have employer paid health insurance, then the individual can afford health care. Without that, no, only the very wealthy can afford health care. That has to change, and fast. The employers can't really afford it now.

Would GenSeca's idea really work? Get out of the way and allow the free market to work? It does work for consumer goods.

What would happen to people with health issues that they can't afford to take care of? That could be slightly different from a family who wants a big screen TV and can't afford it.

 

[dogtowner]

And you think that we can afford it now...REALLY

The medical biz is still in business so it would seem to be so.

But its creeping to 'no we cant' every day so we can't realy afford to screw around with bureaucracy expansion now, we've done that overly long now. We need to work on the causes of why medical care costs too damn much. Fix that and the peripheral issues like pre-existing will take a big step toward taking care of themselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

Would GenSeca's idea really work? Get out of the way and allow the free market to work? It does work for consumer goods.

What would happen to people with health issues that they can't afford to take care of? That could be slightly different from a family who wants a big screen TV and can't afford it.

It would take time. Government didn't just show up one day in the health care market, it has been weaving its way through the system incrementally. Removing it from HC would take a couple of years, that is, if you didn't want to shock the current system and have problems like the one you mention.

The best place to start is by increasing the number of practicing health care professionals and removing governments financial incentives to universities for limiting their enrollment in medical schools. Since it takes time to train new HC professionals, we should remove the immigration cap for 10-15 years on foreign born HC professionals to allow as many as possible to enter the country and gain citizenship - this also increases the tax base.

Remove all regulation of the insurance companies, drug companies, and Health Savings Accounts, leaving only the protections necessary to prevent them from committing fraud. Make all HSA's completely tax free. Encourage people to use HSA's to pay for out of pocket checkups and preventative care while maintaining a catastrophic care policy from insurance - That will remove the middle man in all but the biggest procedures and help to bring down costs of the most common procedures.

Change the tax structure regarding insurance. Buying it through our employers doesn't allow for mobility but purchasing a single policy can be far more expensive and taxes do play a role in that. Coupling HSA's and personal catastrophic care that doesn't come from your employer would make HC insurance as affordable and portable as car insurance.

Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Enact tort reform. Medicare/Medicaid and the prescription drug program (Medicare part D) all need to be drastically reformed but that's for another post.

Only through measures such as these can we bring down the cost of providing Health Care. Government measures are completely unable to bring down the cost of providing care, the best it can do is reduce expenditures on HC by rationing care, reducing services, and pushing cost overruns onto the debt.

 

[Gipper]

It would take time. Government didn't just show up one day in the health care market, it has been weaving its way through the system incrementally. Removing it from HC would take a couple of years, that is, if you didn't want to shock the current system and have problems like the one you mention.

The best place to start is by increasing the number of practicing health care professionals and removing governments financial incentives to universities for limiting their enrollment in medical schools. Since it takes time to train new HC professionals, we should remove the immigration cap for 10-15 years on foreign born HC professionals to allow as many as possible to enter the country and gain citizenship - this also increases the tax base.

Remove all regulation of the insurance companies, drug companies, and Health Savings Accounts, leaving only the protections necessary to prevent them from committing fraud. Make all HSA's completely tax free. Encourage people to use HSA's to pay for out of pocket checkups and preventative care while maintaining a catastrophic care policy from insurance - That will remove the middle man in all but the biggest procedures and help to bring down costs of the most common procedures.

Change the tax structure regarding insurance. Buying it through our employers doesn't allow for mobility but purchasing a single policy can be far more expensive and taxes do play a role in that. Coupling HSA's and personal catastrophic care that doesn't come from your employer would make HC insurance as affordable and portable as car insurance.

Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Enact tort reform. Medicare/Medicaid and the prescription drug program (Medicare part D) all need to be drastically reformed but that's for another post.

Only through measures such as these can we bring down the cost of providing Health Care. Government measures are completely unable to bring down the cost of providing care, the best it can do is reduce expenditures on HC by rationing care, reducing services, and pushing cost overruns onto the debt.

It is nice to dream now and then Gen, but the progressives in the f-government have been working diligently for decades to destroy our health care system so they can impose socialism.

The main reasons health care is so expensive is due to actions taken by the government. For example, heavy handed regulations, outrageous tort liabilities, and open borders allowing illegals free access..but progressives never talk about the real reasons and their duped followers are too ignorant to understand.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, this is the correct forum to continue this discussion.

Just a couple of observations:

It would seem that California, population 35 million, would be big enough for market forces to operate, but nevertheless, let's by all means allow insurers to compete across state lines. That should be a no brainer.

yes, no doubt part of the cost of medical care is due to lawsuits, so tort reform is a good idea.

But, let's not just stop there and think we've solved the problem of runaway health care costs.

As for the choices, no, it's not a matter of simply allowing individuals to do without medical insurance. It is a question of allowing individuals to do without medical care. If we're not willing to "violate someone's rights" to provide for the uninsured, how is a person of limited means, or even of moderate means, going to pay for a procedure that runs to the hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The choices are (1) require everyone to have insurance, (2) pay for the uninsured in one way or another, or (3) allow some to do without medical care.

A universal catastrophic plan would be the most logical, practical, and affordable way to go. It will never happen, of course, as it would cut out the insurance giants and cut into the profits of big pharma, but it is something to think about anyway.

 

[GenSeneca]

It would seem that California, population 35 million, would be big enough for market forces to operate, but nevertheless, let's by all means allow insurers to compete across state lines.

If memory serves me correctly, there are only 6 insurance providers in your state, that's not much in the way of competition.

yes, no doubt part of the cost of medical care is due to lawsuits, so tort reform is a good idea.

Given that trial lawyers are the largest contributors to the Democrat Party, and that party happens to be in charge, we won't be seeing tort reform.

It is a question of allowing individuals to do without medical care.

From everything you've said on the subject, you want everyone to have the best possible medical care whether they can afford it or not, rather than simply acquiring a level of care they can afford. This is analogous to demanding that since everyone needs to eat, everyone should be guaranteed steak, lobster, caviar and champagne.

If we're not willing to "violate someone's rights" to provide for the uninsured, how is a person of limited means, or even of moderate means, going to pay for a procedure that runs to the hundreds of thousands of dollars?

See above... You need to explain why they should be entitled to steak, lobster, caviar and champagne when they could get by with Raman noodles and mixed vegetables (My primary source of nutrition ).

The choices are (1) require everyone to have insurance, (2) pay for the uninsured in one way or another, or (3) allow some to do without medical care.

They are false choices. 1 & 2, You've already accepted the Collectivist morality that "society" is responsible for the health and well being of every individual. 3, they might have to do without the best possible care but that doesn't mean there is no level of care they could obtain by their own means and/or through charity.

A universal catastrophic plan would be the most logical, practical, and affordable way to go. It will never happen, of course, as it would cut out the insurance giants and cut into the profits of big pharma, but it is something to think about anyway.

In a Free Market environment, such a thing is entirely possible. Health care could be sold like life insurance, both term and whole life, if you buy in at a younger age when you're healthy, it would be cost effective for insurance carriers to give you health care over such a long period of time.

 

[PLC1]

If memory serves me correctly, there are only 6 insurance providers in your state, that's not much in the way of competition.

That should be enough, but nevertheless, why not allow competition across state lines? That should be a given. The only problem is that the Republicans suggested it, so the Democrats have to reject it. Partisan politics are the real root of the problem there.

Given that trial lawyers are the largest contributors to the Democrat Party, and that party happens to be in charge, we won't be seeing tort reform.

And they don't contribute to Republicans? Well, once again, it appears to be partisan politics that is the root of the matter.

From everything you've said on the subject, you want everyone to have the best possible medical care whether they can afford it or not, rather than simply acquiring a level of care they can afford. This is analogous to demanding that since everyone needs to eat, everyone should be guaranteed steak, lobster, caviar and champagne.


See above... You need to explain why they should be entitled to steak, lobster, caviar and champagne when they could get by with Raman noodles and mixed vegetables (My primary source of nutrition ).

Not at all. Everyone should have a catastrophic care insurance. Those who can afford it can buy supplemental coverage, but it wouldn't be an absolute necessity. It would be more like lobster instead of raman.

I think lobster and caviar are overrated, too. Fish eggs? yuck. What is a lobster but a big bug that lives in the sea? But i digress.

They are false choices. 1 & 2, You've already accepted the Collectivist morality that "society" is responsible for the health and well being of every individual. 3, they might have to do without the best possible care but that doesn't mean there is no level of care they could obtain by their own means and/or through charity.

And if you don't accept that "collectivist morality", then you have to admit to the results. We pay for the uninsured now. If we quit doing so, then some people will not get care. If you're willing to accept that, fine, but don't continue to claim it won't happen.

In a Free Market environment, such a thing is entirely possible. Health care could be sold like life insurance, both term and whole life, if you buy in at a younger age when you're healthy, it would be cost effective for insurance carriers to give you health care over such a long period of time.

Sure, in an ideal world perhaps, where companies never go out of business, reorganize, or find ways to purge their rolls of the older and more expensive clients, such a plan might work. In the real world, it simply doesn't work that way.

 

[GenSeneca]

And they don't contribute to Republicans? Well, once again, it appears to be partisan politics that is the root of the matter.

This year, the split is 80/20 but they average 73/26 over the last 20 years.

OPEN SECRETS

Everyone should have a catastrophic care insurance.

Very much like what I suggested earlier in your thread except I disagree that people should be forced to purchase insurance, whether for themselves or for others.

We pay for the uninsured now. If we quit doing so, then some people will not get care.

You mean they won't get steak and lobster... I contend they would be able to get some level of care.

If you're willing to accept that, fine, but don't continue to claim it won't happen.

I am fine with people getting what they can afford, that's how it works with every other product, service or commodity. There is no right to health care. Such a "right" would mean that you have a "right" to the labor of another individual. No such right can exist.

Sure, in an ideal world perhaps

Quite often I'm accused of being idealistic and my views are dismissed as impractical... The kind of system you want already exists on a limited scale, it's deeply in debt and moving quickly towards insolvency, Medicare.

The forced redistribution of wealth has not been able to cover the cost of providing care for a limited portion of society yet people like yourself are convinced that such programs can be greatly expanded without greatly increasing their rate of insolvency. I find such suggestions to be incredibly idealistic and impractical... They also happen to be immoral, unethical and unjust because it's based on the violation of individual rights.

 

[PLC1]

This year, the split is 80/20 but they average 73/26 over the last 20 years.

OPEN SECRETS


Very much like what I suggested earlier in your thread except I disagree that people should be forced to purchase insurance, whether for themselves or for others.


You mean they won't get steak and lobster... I contend they would be able to get some level of care.


I am fine with people getting what they can afford, that's how it works with every other product, service or commodity. There is no right to health care. Such a "right" would mean that you have a "right" to the labor of another individual. No such right can exist.


Quite often I'm accused of being idealistic and my views are dismissed as impractical... The kind of system you want already exists on a limited scale, it's deeply in debt and moving quickly towards insolvency, Medicare.

The forced redistribution of wealth has not been able to cover the cost of providing care for a limited portion of society yet people like yourself are convinced that such programs can be greatly expanded without greatly increasing their rate of insolvency. I find such suggestions to be incredibly idealistic and impractical... They also happen to be immoral, unethical and unjust because it's based on the violation of individual rights.

Unlike your political philosophy, and (whose? I don't remember) idea of socialist anarchy, universal health care has been tried in many other nations. While not perfect, it is better than what we have, and costs a lot less.

I've yet to read a post by anyone from a country with universal medical care who would rather adopt our system.

Your idea of medical care being given on the basis of what the individual can afford is workable if and only if we're really willing to turn people away from the emergency room. If not, then we will wind up paying for their care anyway, and paying dearly at that.

 

[GenSeneca]

Unlike your political philosophy, and (whose? I don't remember) idea of socialist anarchy, universal health care has been tried in many other nations. While not perfect, it is better than what we have, and costs a lot less.

We've been over this before too. Our government keeps at least two sets of books (a practice that is strictly illegal in the private sector), there is no reason to believe that other countries do not also keep multiple books. We are the "freest" nation in the world and the most transparent where government is concerned so it would be wise to take any claims made by other countries with a grain of salt and a dash of skepticism.

One of our British members (Diamond or Scotty) remarked that their universal healthcare system waxed and waned, it is the essence of mediocrity. When funding is down, everyone suffers because services are slashed across the board. Such a system doesn't improve health care, it only makes sure everyone gets equally crappy service.

Canadian Premier comes to US for heart Surgery

I've yet to read a post by anyone from a country with universal medical care who would rather adopt our system.

This is typical... I'm not arguing to keep the status quo, I want massive reforms but away from greater government waste of our tax dollars and control of our lives.

Your idea of medical care being given on the basis of what the individual can afford is workable if and only if we're really willing to turn people away from the emergency room. If not, then we will wind up paying for their care anyway, and paying dearly at that.

Everyone who finds that unacceptable is free to donate what they would otherwise pay in additional taxes to a private charity for the same purpose. Is there any doubt in your mind that private charities are more efficient than our federal government?

 

[PLC1]

Canadian Premier comes to US for heart Surgery

Whoa! Is he ever going to take heat from his constituency for that one!

Still, the US is not exactly a preferred destination for most medical tourism. I wonder why he made that decision?

Since he no doubt lacks US medical insurance, it's going to cost him a bundle, too. Maybe he is wealthy enough that it doesn't matter.

This is typical... I'm not arguing to keep the status quo, I want massive reforms but away from greater government waste of our tax dollars and control of our lives.

Surely you don't consider insurers competing across state lines and tort reform to be "massive reforms." What, exactly, are you advocating then?

Everyone who finds that unacceptable is free to donate what they would otherwise pay in additional taxes to a private charity for the same purpose. Is there any doubt in your mind that private charities are more efficient than our federal government?

I have no doubt that, once they have the money, they spend it more efficiently. Some of them use fund raisers that keep up to 80% of the money for their services.

I have serious doubts that charity is going to be able to raise enough money to pay for indigent medical care, however.

 

[GenSeneca]

What, exactly, are you advocating then?

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128774&postcount=34

I have serious doubts that charity is going to be able to raise enough money to pay for indigent medical care, however.

What do you know about the effects Helicopter Parents have on their children?

No parent and no government can protect people from reality forever. The longer someone is protected from reality, the more devastating the consequences when that protection is no longer there and the individual must face reality. Such people are almost totally helpless in the real world. Allowing government to coddle people from cradle to grave in trade for their liberty is not a sustainable solution and when it crumbles, the generation left holding the bag will be totally helpless. Nothing good can come of that.

 

[PLC1]

The best place to start is by increasing the number of practicing health care professionals and removing governments financial incentives to universities for limiting their enrollment in medical schools.

The government gives an incentive to medical schools to limit their enrollment? if that is so, then I'll second that motion.


How do you know?

Remove all regulation of the insurance companies, drug companies,

and just trust them to put public health before the bottom line? Now, there's a scary thought.

Make all HSA's completely tax free. Encourage people to use HSA's to pay for out of pocket checkups and preventative care while maintaining a catastrophic care policy from insurance - That will remove the middle man in all but the biggest procedures and help to bring down costs of the most common procedures.

I like that one. It would fit nicely with my idea of catastrophic coverage for everyone.

Change the tax structure regarding insurance.

Meaning individual policies would be paid for with untaxed dollars, I assume.

Not taxing employer provided policies.

Those are mostly good ideas. The drug companies and the insurance industry would need some public oversight, of course.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "massive reform", but it would be a place to start. There are still issues:

Now, as a senior, I have to ask about Medicare. As it is now, there is no other way for seniors to get medical insurance. No insurance company is going to be anxious to provide coverage for the most expensive demographic.

I know your idea of buying a long term policy while young, but that wasn't an option when I was young, back around the late Pleistocene era.

What about seniors?

 

[Devil505]

The so called poor want to be rich, except they don't want to work for it & they accept goverment handouts to buy their cars & IPods.

Far Right GOP BS. (In actuality....the poor are the ones who fight in & pay for your wars.... that you rich people start but are afraid to go yourselves)