Let's not do what is best for the country.

[PLC1]

"It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes"

That quotable quote by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pretty much sums up the reasons why Congress can't seem to pass a health care bill that actually has a chance of fixing the problems with our current system, or, maybe, much of anything else that is actually the best thing for the country.

Could we actually think about what is best not for the party, for the local constituency, but for the late great United States?

No, I suppose not.

Wouldn't it be great if the Congress could just scrap the current monstrosity and go back to pass a rational, workable bill that would actually streamline the delivery of health care and put a lid on costs? I suppose that is much like hoping for unicorns and Santa coming down the chimney with the keys to a new Lexus.

Fun to think about, but it will never happen.

Well, maybe if we were to fire the current public servants who are, after all, our employees, and hired a new team.

But, of course, that will never happen either.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

"It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes"

That quotable quote by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pretty much sums up the reasons why Congress can't seem to pass a health care bill that actually has a chance of fixing the problems with our current system, or, maybe, much of anything else that is actually the best thing for the country.

Could we actually think about what is best not for the party, for the local constituency, but for the late great United States?

No, I suppose not.

Wouldn't it be great if the Congress could just scrap the current monstrosity and go back to pass a rational, workable bill that would actually streamline the delivery of health care and put a lid on costs? I suppose that is much like hoping for unicorns and Santa coming down the chimney with the keys to a new Lexus.

Fun to think about, but it will never happen.

Well, maybe if we were to fire the current public servants who are, after all, our employees, and hired a new team.

But, of course, that will never happen either.

Sure we can, get rid of the House and Senate and Make Obama the only one in charge and say fix it now...then we don't need to deal with Elections of all those people, Conservitives and Moderates and such...just good old here it is no debate, do what I say....


Hard to see them all come together to work on a bill when one side yells Commie, Stalin, Hilter at anyone that suggest the goverment do anything...while they Yell keep the same system and only thing they want is tort Reform ( that does not realy do anything to fix the system at all) and less regulation..aka more freedom to deny coverage, kick the sick out of the system and get more profits...The Right had 8 years and I never heard anything about fixing anything outside tort reform....

so you tell me how you get that work out...no giving anyone anything to change there mind...and you need 60% to agree....

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

"It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes"

And you don't think that system hasn't been in place since before George took office {not G.W.B.} but the first George the father our this great country. That's the way in which this great country/states/counties/cities have operated for generations

I'm just surprised that you're so surprised

 

[BigRob]

"It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes"

And you don't think that system hasn't been in place since before George took office {not G.W.B.} but the first George the father our this great country. That's the way in which this great country/states/counties/cities have operated for generations

I'm just surprised that you're so surprised

Wasn't it Madison that went on and on about how great factions battling it out were?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Wasn't it Madison that went on and on about how great factions battling it out were?

I don't remember...but back in the 'DAY' those old curmudgeons used to go start their own newspapers just so that they could verbally stick to each other in PRINT and people would have the opportunity to read that specific point of view {highly biased and not always factual} but it was printed up non-the-less!

That's most likely the origins of that old tried & true colloquial saying: "don't tell them what they WANT to hear, just tell them what we NEED them to know"...seems to still work really well in todays electronic era!

 

[flaja]

Wouldn't it be great if the Congress could just scrap the current monstrosity and go back to pass a rational, workable bill that would actually streamline the delivery of health care and put a lid on costs?

What do you propose? Describe the plan that you think would work.

 

[top gun]

"It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes"

That quotable quote by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pretty much sums up the reasons why Congress can't seem to pass a health care bill that actually has a chance of fixing the problems with our current system, or, maybe, much of anything else that is actually the best thing for the country.

Could we actually think about what is best not for the party, for the local constituency, but for the late great United States?

No, I suppose not.

Wouldn't it be great if the Congress could just scrap the current monstrosity and go back to pass a rational, workable bill that would actually streamline the delivery of health care and put a lid on costs? I suppose that is much like hoping for unicorns and Santa coming down the chimney with the keys to a new Lexus.

Fun to think about, but it will never happen.

Well, maybe if we were to fire the current public servants who are, after all, our employees, and hired a new team.

But, of course, that will never happen either.

I guess your point then is democracy isn't easy... and you are correct.

If we elected all new people they'd be just as swayed by the one side or the other... and you need support from one side or the other to get elected or to stay in office. And you can't stop large groups from taking sides because that's their freedom of speech.

Healthcare is a prime example of what happens when you try to address a real problem in Washington. Everybody knows the current system has been hijacked by big business and multitudes of people are being screwed either by the costs or by not being able to get it for a laundry list of reasons.

Everyone also knows just as the CBO has stated over & over again that a single payer system includes the most people, reduces the deficit the most and directs the most money directly to healthcare due to the non-profit angle. So one side tries to reform the system.

But then there's also a considerable amount of people that currently have a decent healthcare plan and they feel they would rather live with it's ever escalating costs than to try something new. So that side tries to stop reform.

In the end to get something done a huge number of compromises must be worked into the original reform plan which change the original plan significantly.

I personally liked the major overhaul of Health Insurance with a single payer or at least a public option. But not getting what I really wanted and thought best doesn't mean that there aren't numerous improvements in this Bill compared to the status quo... because there deffinately are some.

I'm mostly glad that we are at least trying and not just letting a system with real problems continue downhill exactly in the same manner it has been going for years.

You fight it out and in the end try to remember that you don't give up on good waiting for perfect... because perfect will never ever happen.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Oh, listen to that sound of the Republicans Screeching Monkey CRIES...but wait...just wait until they get their turn...Phase 2 is soon to start and then we'll see just who gets to the top of the 'LETS MAKE A DEAL' pile with the Republican side

Yep, it'll be real interesting to see how the 'SH!T SETTLES' when their (the Screeching Monkey Republicans}are done over there!

It's all just status quo and that's the way it is in AMERICA!

 

[PLC1]

What do you propose? Describe the plan that you think would work.

Take an existing plan, Medicare. It pays 80% of the medical bill of the elderly.

Now, take the age restriction off, so that anyone can buy into Medicare.
Change the payment so that instead of paying 80% of everything, it doesn't pay at all until the individual has paid 10% of his annual income for medical care. After that, it pays 100%.

Now, end Medicaid. We no longer need it, as everyone is covered.

Since everyone is paying their own bills up to a point, everyone has an incentive to know what services cost and act accordingly.

Since no one has to pay what they can not pay, no one goes broke because of medical bills.

No one would absolutely need health insurance, but they could buy it if they wanted that 10% covered. It would be an individual choice.

Pay for it by allowing employers to pay a portion, just a portion mind you, of the amount they are currently paying for the existing inefficient system, and by applying what is saved from Medicaid. We have covered everyone, controlled costs, and eliminated rather than created a government bureaucracy.

 

[GenSeneca]

Since no one has to pay what they can not pay, no one goes broke because of medical bills.

More federal deficits and debt.

No one would absolutely need health insurance, but they could buy it if they wanted that 10% covered. It would be an individual choice.

That plan would effectively put the private insurance industry out of business or drive up their premiums to the point where few people could afford to have private insurance.

We have covered everyone, controlled costs, and eliminated rather than created a government bureaucracy.

That would cover everyone.

You haven't controlled costs of providing health services, you've only limited the payments that providers receive. The providers shortfalls are then passed onto private insurance, driving up their premiums.

You would be able to get rid of Medicaid but the expansion of Medicare would dwarf the savings of eliminating that program.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You want Federal Deficit and Going Broke...Keep what he have now.

 

[GenSeneca]

Unlike the Democrat talking point about the opposition not wanting any reform and preferring the status quo (a talking point you've bought into hook line and sinker) we do want reforms, more than just tort reform and "deregulation".

What we don't want are the wrong reforms, statist reforms, that ignore the role government plays in driving up the cost of HC. Supporters of statist HC reform blame 100% of the problems on the private sector and disavow government of any wrongdoing in creating the mess we currently call the status quo.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Unlike the Democrat talking point about the opposition not wanting any reform and preferring the status quo (a talking point you've bought into hook line and sinker) we do want reforms, more than just tort reform and "deregulation".

What we don't want are the wrong reforms, statist reforms, that ignore the role government plays in driving up the cost of HC. Supporters of statist HC reform blame 100% of the problems on the private sector and disavow government of any wrongdoing in creating the mess we currently call the status quo.

talk is cheap 8 years of Silence was much louder...

 

[PLC1]

More federal deficits and debt.

I already said how my plan would be paid for. Far from adding to the debt, it would help reduce deficits.

That plan would effectively put the private insurance industry out of business or drive up their premiums to the point where few people could afford to have private insurance.

Hardly. If the insurers liability were that limited, the policy costs would be about what Medicare supplements cost now, around $50 to $100 per month.

That would cover everyone.

Yes, it would.

You haven't controlled costs of providing health services, you've only limited the payments that providers receive. The providers shortfalls are then passed onto private insurance, driving up their premiums.

I don't think you understand. Nothing I've outlined would limit the provider's payments in any way. Of course, private insurance would no longer be an absolute necessity, so the insurance industry wouldn't like it, but they would still have a profitable business.

Of course I've controlled the costs, and used the free market to do it. It is something for everyone: market forces controlling costs appeal to conservatives, the 10% of income is more for the wealthy, which appeals to liberals. Business would save money, and be able to pass savings on to employees. Those employees would have more money to spend, and thus improve the economy, providing yet more jobs. It is a perfect solution.

You would be able to get rid of Medicaid but the expansion of Medicare would dwarf the savings of eliminating that program.

But the costs would be covered. The overall outlay for medical care would go down to something that everyone could afford.

Not that it will ever happen, of course. The insurance industry would be pared back, so they would lobby against the plan. The congresspeople taking their money would rail about illegal aliens taking the money, and who knows what other nonsense. The sheeple would be led to oppose their own best interests yet again.

So, like many things that would help control costs, it will never happen.

 

[flaja]

Take an existing plan, Medicare. It pays 80% of the medical bill of the elderly.

And it is also breaking the budget and the coverage isn't as good as you seem to think. My mother has Medicare due to being disabled rather than her age. She pays about $400 of her $1500 a month SSI disability pension for Medicare and a supplemental insurance policy. But after a very lengthy hospital stay in the local county hospital (which is the only hospital she can use with her supplemental policy) she is still owes about $150,000 in medical bills and still has $100+ out of pocket costs for medications each month.

Now, take the age restriction off, so that anyone can buy into Medicare.
Change the payment so that instead of paying 80% of everything, it doesn't pay at all until the individual has paid 10% of his annual income for medical care. After that, it pays 100%.

But how many people can afford this 10%?

Since everyone is paying their own bills up to a point, everyone has an incentive to know what services cost and act accordingly.

Wouldn’t it do just as well to tax things that cause Americans to need medical care in the first place? The #1 killer in this country apart from accident is heart disease and heart disease is very much a lifestyle disease. Americans eat too much, eat the wrong things, smoke and drink and spent too much time sitting at a desk, behind the wheel or in front of a TV.

Since no one has to pay what they can not pay, no one goes broke because of medical bills.

If no one has to pay what they cannot pay, no one has any incentive to reduce their own costs.

No one would absolutely need health insurance, but they could buy it if they wanted that 10% covered.

Only if they could afford the insurance premiums. I don’t take this as a given.

Pay for it by allowing employers to pay a portion,

Unemployment is 10% and companies like Walmart usually won’t pay for your healthcare even if they have a job opening.

I am just playing devil’s advocate here to illustrate that healthcare is not an easy problem to deal with. We shouldn’t expect simple solutions.