Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's something to chat about.....Sen. Gregg's Op-Ed on health care....
Ready......GO!
Op-Ed Contributor: Health reform possible without growing government - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090611/pl_ynews/ynews_pl383 - broken link)
Quote:
Op-Ed Contributor: Health reform possible without growing government
By Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Washington, DC — To be effective, health care reform must include insurance coverage for everyone, encourage prevention measures, and reform the inefficiencies in our system to ensure the future strength of our economy. CPR—Coverage, Prevention, Reform—is a plan I have proposed that sets up a system where every American will be required to purchase meaningful health insurance to ensure each family will be protected against bankruptcy if a family member becomes seriously ill or injured. No family should lose their home or life-savings because of illness or injury. For those who may not be able to afford this plan, you will have assistance getting coverage.
.
Last edited by Keeper; 06-12-2009 at 04:25 PM..
Reason: copyright article. post a snippet and then a link to rest of the article
I think we have a huge healthcare problem in this country and there are multiple reasons for it. A lot of people are quick to blame doctors, hospital administrators, insurance companies, the FDA, etc.
As I've said before the easiest way to explain increases in healthcare costs is as follows:
In 1909 if someone had a bad knee they lived with a little hurt and got a cane. In 2009 they get a new knee which is a one-off engineering/production effort of exotic materials. Which costs more?
Likewise all of the bacteria in an entire room used to be killed by a naturally occuring mold called pennicilin (sp?); now thanks to anti-bacterial soaps, people not taking all their meds, etc...the new anti-biotics require years and millions of dollars to develop new synthetic molecules, figure out a way to combine these new substances, and make it safe for human consumption (in 1900 we could test the drug on the mentally retarded or a stolen family pet...do they die after taking it? Nope? Good).
The problem is that as our quality of treatment/life after treatment rises, so do our costs. Yes there are steps that doctors/hospitals can take to increase efficiencies and yes insurance overhead costs are a huge burden; but these are not the root cause of the problem.
That said, the insurance business is based on balancing risk. Essentially we all pay in $100, but as long as most of us "average" less than $100 in expenses- the company profits. To this end the more a company charges for insurance and the more selective they are in accepting low-risk individuals; the more they profit. The problem is that "sick" individuals don't necessarily have consumer choice so its not really a free market; the incentive is almost always to pick the higher priced option...
I don't know what the fix is. The statistician in me says that a single pool of coverage for the entire US would have the lowest risk (MOST of us don't get sick), so therefore this option would result in the lowest average per consumer cost for the same level of care. The problem is this won't necessarily fix the problem; the poor still don't have the $$$ to pay for it and the rich will still be ticked off over the quality of care due to the sudden massive flood into the system...
I'm pretty surprised no-one has commented on my explanation for the main reason for rising health care costs. When engaged in this conversation another time there were plenty of weird med-school in-bed-with insurance company theories thrown out...
Well BF, while I realize I'm being literal again but if this is what you think about knees...
Quote:
In 1909 if someone had a bad knee they lived with a little hurt and got a cane. In 2009 they get a new knee which is a one-off engineering/production effort of exotic materials. Which costs more?
Let me tell ya: as someone who has had both knees replaced a year and a half ago... there is not a chance one can live 'with a little hurt and use a cane'. It's excrutiating pain and you'd be miserable and in a wheelchair not able to lead any sort of productive life. I couldn't even walk across an average hotel room without tears from pain and frustration! and that was even with taking the vicodin (which wasn't working much anymore). The pain was waking me up at night, it hurt so much (and that's pretty normal at that stage). So... which costs more? not getting your knees replaced so that you can continue to function.
Well BF, while I realize I'm being literal again but if this is what you think about knees...
Let me tell ya: as someone who has had both knees replaced a year and a half ago... there is not a chance one can live 'with a little hurt and use a cane'. It's excrutiating pain and you'd be miserable and in a wheelchair not able to lead any sort of productive life. I couldn't even walk across an average hotel room without tears from pain and frustration! and that was even with taking the vicodin (which wasn't working much anymore). The pain was waking me up at night, it hurt so much (and that's pretty normal at that stage). So... which costs more? not getting your knees replaced so that you can continue to function.
And there lies my point- who makes the call on who can get what replaced in order to reduce costs? Is there some "meter" to gauge pain and people who are below X get a cane, over X get new knees?
It's ridiculously complicated with some moral questions as well.
Shockingly I agree with the basic premise of Senator Gregg's health care plan except for keeping the private health insurance, hospitals and medical schools companies involved. The system could be funded with a simple payroll tax (government payment for the unemployed) and administered by a super computer in Kansas. Payments would have to be set to keep the incentives for primary care physicians ($200 K/yr) and proportionately more for specialists, with government coverage of malpractice claims, for doctors to continue to practice but not so high as to create multimillionaires.
This creates a vast population in the government administrated non profit insurance system which reduces the individual costs of the insurance. Other savings accrue because there would be no private profits or exorbitant executive salaries to pay.
Shockingly I agree with the basic premise of Senator Gregg's health care plan except for keeping the private health insurance, hospitals and medical schools companies involved. The system could be funded with a simple payroll tax (government payment for the unemployed) and administered by a super computer in Kansas. Payments would have to be set to keep the incentives for primary care physicians ($200 K/yr) and proportionately more for specialists, with government coverage of malpractice claims, for doctors to continue to practice but not so high as to create multimillionaires.
This creates a vast population in the government administrated non profit insurance system which reduces the individual costs of the insurance. Other savings accrue because there would be no private profits or exorbitant executive salaries to pay.
That's called socialism Greg.
We should cap your salary because you make too much.
Well, for full impact, capping Greg's salary would have to occur at the same time his taxes were raised and his medical decisions decided by the gov't.
About health care - any kind of mandate, employer or individual is a disguised tax, which should be obvious. It is a sneaky way for Obama to get around his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k. Hard to fathom in the midst of a recession. Does anyone remember Obama's stand on this during his campaign? He said that it would be wrong to force people to buy insurance they may not be able to afford, even saying that middle class taxes should not be raised to pay for health care reform. Yet this will likely come to pass considering reconciliation. Does anyone trust that a health care mandate would not become a pork program for medical providers?
Will redirecting wage contributions to taxes make American industry more competetive?
Sneaky, hell--he's already violated that campaign promise. Cap-and-trade would be immensely worse still. Now we have word today that they want to tax employer-issued cell phones.
Hey, gotta pay for all that socialism somehow, don't we? Well, not we, says the politician--more like YOU.
Maggie Thatcher was right. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but if this is what you think about knees...
