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.
Then Health Care must be MADE affordable, universal and government run. If it requires wage and price controls, then so be it. If pharmaceutical companies must be brought to heel than, so be it. If extraordinary, heroic and expensive procedures must be limited or eliminated, then so be it. And a given: If Health Insurance companies are driven to ruin, then so be it.
Other countries have PROVEN that health care better than ours can be delivered to all AFFORDABLY.
We can do the same if we break up the cartel-style collusion between medical providers and government.
Those other countries you speak of have not made healthcare affordable. All they have done is subsidize healthcare on the taxpayers' dime, in one way or another. Hence if you want to talk about solutions, you must start with the premise that healthcare must be subsidized in order to benefit all. Those people who cannot stand subsidies, will never find a solution and instead limit themselves to criticizing the finer points.
Those other countries you speak of have not made healthcare affordable. All they have done is subsidize healthcare on the taxpayers' dime, in one way or another. Hence if you want to talk about solutions, you must start with the premise that healthcare must be subsidized in order to benefit all. Those people who cannot stand subsidies, will never find a solution and instead limit themselves to criticizing the finer points.
But what makes you think that subsidies are a long-term solution? It is not like it will all of a sudden make the system affordable. Something is gonna have to give eventually.
But what makes you think that subsidies are a long-term solution? It is not like it will all of a sudden make the system affordable. Something is gonna have to give eventually.
The point is, the cost of healthcare will never be affordable so there is really no solution to this. Either you subsidize it so it can be accessible to all, or you don't and hence pass on the costs to individuals (see mathjak's post about offspring having to shoulder the costs of elderly parents).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King
If extraordinary, heroic and expensive procedures must be limited or eliminated, then so be it.
Like paying for the treatment of chronic illness for the elderly, for which they presently turn to Medicaid? Would you be fine to cut them off?
(A) should be brought in-house. You cannot ignore the need to provision and reserve. If you are to do away with the insurance and reinsurance companies then you need to build it into the Office of the Actuary, which will require complete political independence and possibly a line into the FRB.
(B) I question whether the government will actually be able to pay its bills. They like interest-free loans. Part of the reason why in (A) I stress political independence.
(C) It would be nice if some flexibility or options of coverage could be provided at a cost. Everything can't be plain-vanilla. We all have different needs and requirements. People should have the ability to pay more for add-on coverage if they like.
(D) will lead to rationing and decreased innovation. This will lead to a negative global effect. Perhaps this ends up topping out life expectancies, and bucks the trend.
I was not advocating for the system, I was merely establishing the points other countries have in which single-government payer healthcare has lowered their overall costs.
We can't deny that US citizen+governments spend roughly 40% more than other first world countries on healthcare.
I particularly agree with points C and D. Healthcare is not one size fits all, and the fiscal basis for ours has provided the best medical care, for those who can afford it.
The first step at helping the demand of medical assistance is creating more doctors, nurses, care centers- and providing absolutely no legal ramifications for those seeking any services covered by medicaid, medicare, free-clinics, etc.
Doctors who wish to work on charity cases shouldn't have to carry multi-million dollar malpractice insurance or get 5 opinions to alleviate the risk of getting sued.
We have less medical professionals encouraging their children in the same direction because of new milestones in treating them like victims. Same as we have done as a society for teachers.
Welcome to New York, and Welcome to America- if you're poor and don't work, you don't have the same rights and treatment that the well to do, and well connected are going to receive. That should be embossed on the back of every gov't healthcare card.
I was not advocating for the system, I was merely establishing the points other countries have in which single-government payer healthcare has lowered their overall costs.
We can't deny that US citizen+governments spend roughly 40% more than other first world countries on healthcare.
I particularly agree with points C and D. Healthcare is not one size fits all, and the fiscal basis for ours has provided the best medical care, for those who can afford it.
The first step at helping the demand of medical assistance is creating more doctors, nurses, care centers- and providing absolutely no legal ramifications for those seeking any services covered by medicaid, medicare, free-clinics, etc.
Doctors who wish to work on charity cases shouldn't have to carry multi-million dollar malpractice insurance or get 5 opinions to alleviate the risk of getting sued.
We have less medical professionals encouraging their children in the same direction because of new milestones in treating them like victims. Same as we have done as a society for teachers.
Welcome to New York, and Welcome to America- if you're poor and don't work, you don't have the same rights and treatment that the well to do, and well connected are going to receive. That should be embossed on the back of every gov't healthcare card.
What I think is very unfair is that poor people who don't/never worked have BETTER and more guaranteed/stable health insurance and healthcare than many middle class people.
Rich people can pay for whatever they need.
But middle and working class people have to worry constantly if they will get a job with health insurance, every job change means health insurance changes (and sometimes worse health insurance with a new job), if we are between jobs that means NO health insurance because we often don't qualify for Medicaid regardless, and who can afford to pay for Obamacare.
THIS is not fair.
I would happily pay hundreds of dollars a month more taxes just to have Medicaid for all, guaranteed.
What I think is very unfair is that poor people who don't/never worked have BETTER and more guaranteed/stable health insurance and healthcare than many middle class people.
Rich people can pay for whatever they need.
But middle and working class people have to worry constantly if they will get a job with health insurance, every job change means health insurance changes (and sometimes worse health insurance with a new job), if we are between jobs that means NO health insurance because we often don't qualify for Medicaid regardless, and who can afford to pay for Obamacare.
THIS is not fair.
I would happily pay hundreds of dollars a month more taxes just to have Medicaid for all, guaranteed.
It isn't fair. Life isn't fair. The reulsts of Capitalism isn't fair. It (generally) rewards competence and value.
Some people live in Mansions, some people live in small apartments.
Some people can afford dinners at Per Se, some scrape by to eat at Subway.
Some will see the best doctors, stay at the most attentive hospitals, and receive the least invasive treatments.... some will not.
Yes, the middle class are getting screwed right now. Especially in New York City.
Costs rise and the subsidy of housing and healthcare get greater and greater.
I imagine if we sextupled Medicare Taxes we can cover everyone.
This will hardest hit middle class, showcase extremely high costs for the wealthy, and of course.... leave the 1/3rd in discussion with no increase contribution.
Aside from the wealthy and the political class, soon enough we'll all be forced to only eat Subway. And we won't know what a best doctor, an attentive hospiral, or a less invasive treatment is. I think we'll end up seeing lower life expectancies. Let it roll out, then after the dust settles it might be a good time to get back into the insurance business again.
If their incomes are low enough why the surprise? And I bet you didn't know that many of these are affluent dead beats who paid lawyers tens of thousands to get them poor enough so that Medicaid can cover their long term care needs.
But you wish to imply that these are black women who spend all day breeding like dogs.
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.
