Solution to Healthcare

[top gun]

And somehow Medicare is going bankrupt and cannot sustain itself. Personally, I would prefer a different system. Maybe we can get the government out of the way and actually let insurance companies compete.

But Medicare will at some point need shored up because of different dynamics than regular Health Insurance Reform. Medicare is for old people only (the most costly to insure)... and there's the temporary bubble of the baby boomers coming through the system that will eventually turn around and go the other way.

All that said I know you Rob and you would just really prefer to see this problem to be worked out without government involvement. And that's not an evil idea but it just doesn't seem to ever happen... and the Republicans have had long periods of time when they were in total control to push their vision of reform through. I think you'll agree with me that ANY type of reform on this issue coming from either side is difficult because the political factor is such a huge player.

If I thought that a little Tort reform and letting insurance companies compete with each other across state lines that would be enough to get everyone a shot a affordable healthcare and seriously keep prices from this crazy out of control skyrocketing up I'd be inclined to be more in favor of that too.

But looking at everything needed I just don't see that being anywhere close to enough.

But I still respect your overall position whether I agree or not on the solution. You worry about another entitlement program and that's a valid concern. I just think the importance of basic heathcare is up in priority above some of the other things the government tends to have a hand in.

Your deficit concerns are not without merit. I think a major thing will be if the final Bill is independently deemed deficit neutral as the President says it will.

 

[top gun]

First government intervention has caused many of the problems. Second, right now they are operating on a system setup by government, and needs to be dismantled.

Saying that they should have fixed the problem, is like your boss telling you that you must fix a car with a rubber ducky and a pencil sharpener, and having a bystander say "well he's the mechanic, why can't he fix it?".

Insurance companies are operating under the conditions created by government. Government shouldn't even be involved, but they are. So we need to get government out of the way, not try and have them fix a problem they created to begin with.

Or... it could be this is a big part of the problem...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How effecint is it to pay those CEO;s huge amounts, and spend Billions on Ads? and who should make the choices better ? someone held to account by the taxpayers? or someone held to the Stock holders? when its your life on the line?

 

[BigRob]

But Medicare will at some point need shored up because of different dynamics than regular Health Insurance Reform. Medicare is for old people only (the most costly to insure)... and there's the temporary bubble of the baby boomers coming through the system that will eventually turn around and go the other way.

But we are spending billions on Medicare, and often these old people have to go get supplement insurance plans, such as the AARP Medicare Supplement Insurance.

If this program was really all that effective, why would anyone need additional coverage? Additionally, many of the baby boomers have no even retired, and the Medicare program cannot sustain itself before their influx, what makes you think it can survive the actual influx?

All that said I know you Rob and you would just really prefer to see this problem to be worked out without government involvement. And that's not an evil idea but it just doesn't seem to ever happen... and the Republicans have had long periods of time when they were in total control to push their vision of reform through. I think you'll agree with me that ANY type of reform on this issue coming from either side is difficult because the political factor is such a huge player.

If I thought that a little Tort reform and letting insurance companies compete with each other across state lines that would be enough to get everyone a shot a affordable healthcare and seriously keep prices from this crazy out of control skyrocketing up I'd be inclined to be more in favor of that too.

But looking at everything needed I just don't see that being anywhere close to enough.

I think that much of the needed reform can come in the private market. If we encourage competition across state lines within insurance companies, it could make them be more efficient.

The government needs to get out of the way. Even President Obama compared what it could be like to the Post Office. What he left out however was that in many cases the Post Office has "do not compete" laws (with a few exceptions).

If the situation is like the Post Office, are we going to start doing that as well?

I could support an idea that would give tax credits to individuals to buy health insurance early in life (in a market that is competing). I could agree to some form of government idea that you cannot be dropped once you get insurance, but that would have to be worked out.

But I still respect your overall position whether I agree or not on the solution. You worry about another entitlement program and that's a valid concern. I just think the importance of basic heathcare is up in priority above some of the other things the government tends to have a hand in.

Your deficit concerns are not without merit. I think a major thing will be if the final Bill is independently deemed deficit neutral as the President says it will.

I agree that healthcare is important, but I think it can be better done in the private sector. Artificial price ceilings have never worked, and I see no reason why government mandated prices here will work any better.

 

[BigRob]

How effecint is it to pay those CEO;s huge amounts, and spend Billions on Ads?

Apparently more efficient than the government system since they still manage to turn a profit after all this.

and who should make the choices better ? someone held to account by the taxpayers? or someone held to the Stock holders? when its your life on the line?

I would argue that a mid-level bureaucrat in the HHS Department (for example) is not at all accountable to the taxpayer. In reality, that would be who would be administering this kind of thing.

Being accountable to a stock holder is at least accountable to someone, whereas in the other scenario, I really do not see any accountability.

 

[top gun]

But we are spending billions on Medicare, and often these old people have to go get supplement insurance plans, such as the AARP Medicare Supplement Insurance.

If this program was really all that effective, why would anyone need additional coverage? Additionally, many of the baby boomers have no even retired, and the Medicare program cannot sustain itself before their influx, what makes you think it can survive the actual influx?

Seniors LOVE Medicare... I could post reams of evidence to that effect but I think you'll grant me that. As far as additional coverage there's always ways to upgrade just about anything. It's kinda like a gas mileage thing. A basic Chevy gets decent gas mileage but if you want to have Prius type mileage you can pay for that too.

We will survive the influx just like we survive paying for invasions & occupations we don't have the money for. If it's decided to be important we find a way.

I think that much of the needed reform can come in the private market. If we encourage competition across state lines within insurance companies, it could make them be more efficient.

That would be such a small change in competition vs. price that it would barely be a blip on the screen. And certainly not insure the uninsured, take care of pre-existing conditions or anything else.

The government needs to get out of the way. Even President Obama compared what it could be like to the Post Office. What he left out however was that in many cases the Post Office has "do not compete" laws (with a few exceptions).

If the situation is like the Post Office, are we going to start doing that as well?

We've seen what the deregulation solution did in housing... banking and many other things. Not the silver bullet solution my any means.

As far as the Post Office example it's flawed for this reason and it actually makes my point. The Post Office is already here. The private sector companies like UPS & FedEX are keeping their prices down to try an beat the Post Office. Take away the Post Office competition... their prices would rise at will.

I could support an idea that would give tax credits to individuals to buy health insurance early in life (in a market that is competing). I could agree to some form of government idea that you cannot be dropped once you get insurance, but that would have to be worked out.

I agree that healthcare is important, but I think it can be better done in the private sector. Artificial price ceilings have never worked, and I see no reason why government mandated prices here will work any better.

The harsh reality is that if you give tax credits and the insurance companies can raise prices at will (as they do) those tax credit become pretty worthless.

I'd like to see single payer but that's not politically realistic right now. We need to get in there with a plan that offers affordable insurance to every American with or without an employer involved and doesn't disallow for pre-existing conditions.

We get that and declare victory. Then we show that the system does work and we decide how best to proceed from there.

 

[BigRob]

Seniors LOVE Medicare... I could post reams of evidence to that effect but I think you'll grant me that. As far as additional coverage there's always ways to upgrade just about anything. It's kinda like a gas mileage thing. A basic Chevy gets decent gas mileage but if you want to have Prius type mileage you can pay for that too.

Seniors do love Medicare for the most part, but loving something does not make it efficient or affordable or sustainable.

We will survive the influx just like we survive paying for invasions & occupations we don't have the money for. If it's decided to be important we find a way.

I think you can admit that healthcare will probably end up costing more than Iraq and Afghanistan.

That would be such a small change in competition vs. price that it would barely be a blip on the screen. And certainly not insure the uninsured, take care of pre-existing conditions or anything else.

Republicans have proposed HR 2520 and S. 1099 that would establish exchanges and tax credits for people who buy there own insurance. It would make companies compete, and when you buy your insurance very early on and can not lose it should you lose your job, it would limit preexisting conditions.

We've seen what the deregulation solution did in housing... banking and many other things. Not the silver bullet solution my any means.

The banking industry was and is one of the most heavily regulated industries.

As far as the Post Office example it's flawed for this reason and it actually makes my point. The Post Office is already here. The private sector companies like UPS & FedEX are keeping their prices down to try an beat the Post Office. Take away the Post Office competition... their prices would rise at will.

The Post office is losing billions. If it went away, FedEx and UPS would still compete against each other, and DHL etc.

The harsh reality is that if you give tax credits and the insurance companies can raise prices at will (as they do) those tax credit become pretty worthless.

I don't see that happening.

 

[Phoenix68]

Solution to Healthcare​

Here is all that needs to be done:

Here is all that needs to be done!
.

.

​

 

[Phoenix68]

Seniors do love Medicare for the most part, but loving something does not make it efficient or affordable or sustainable.

​