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.
Thank you for clarifying. I completely agree that both the government and business are guilty here. As I mentioned in previous posts, the lynchpin in all this is campaign finance reform. My thoughts on that are (and I'm open to listening others):
1. Make campaign contributions over $ 100 illegal
2. Make campaign contributions by organizations illegal
3. Full disclosure of all investments by public officials - no blind trusts either
4. Eliminate the revolving door between Pennslyvania Ave and K Street. For example, in this case, Jim DeMint would have been forced to serve out his term and be prohibited from accepting that million dollar gig. You don't come to public service to get rich.
5. Break down the two-party system and let other parties participate in the debates.
Those are some points that come to mind.
I understand that some people might think this is off-topic, but if the Obamacare negotiations didn't open our eyes to the evils of lobbying, we need some serious eye surgery.
And Term limits:
1.) President = 1 term of 6 years.
2.) Senator = 2 terms of 6 years
3.) Representative = 2 terms of 3 years.
Once max term is completed they cannot run for the same type of office ever again. This forces them to go back into the real world and live under the laws they passed. Also, while they are serving their terms the focus will be on doing their job rather than getting re-elected.
"Should America give in to a National Healthcare system?"
How can you decide whether or not to 'give in' (whatever that might mean) to something you haven't even defined?
If America is going to adopt a 'National Health System', then :
1. What will it provide? (Health care is a 'scarce' resource. It is simply not possible to provide all possible treatments to everybody who asks for them.)
2. Who is going to decide when treatment should be stopped because it is unlikely to succeed/has become non cost-effective?
3. There will be rationing. How will you do the rationing? - Will you use waiting lists to ration treatment? Will there be co-pays and will you ration treatment that way? Will you ration treatment using age?
4. Who will it provide those treatments to? - Will somebody who lives in a remote hamlet 250 miles from anywhere receive the same level of service and support as somebody who lives in a large metropolis?
I doubt that anybody would disagree with a statement along the lines of: "Health care in the United States does not meet the needs of a significant number of the people" but until somebody quantifies those needs and comes up with a detailed plan - or perhaps many plans, because a 'one size fits all' scheme is unlikely to work, then I don't see how anybody can come up with any scheme which stands much chance of success.
Every one of your points is already part of the current system. The only difference is in the objective function, if I may be permitted to use Operations Research terminology - at present the idea is to maximize corporate profits at the expense of providing health care. All we need to do is flip the priorities.
I agree about the one size fits all part. I think the best way to address this is for each state to develop its own approach, perhaps even including the current monstrosity. This way, we'll soon find out which one works best.
1.) President = 1 term of 6 years.
2.) Senator = 2 terms of 6 years
3.) Representative = 2 terms of 3 years.
Once max term is completed they cannot run for the same type of office ever again. This forces them to go back into the real world and live under the laws they passed. Also, while they are serving their terms the focus will be on doing their job rather than getting re-elected.
Oh yes...thats a wonderful suggestion. My concern with the "go back to the real world" part is that they may make deals that benefit them financially when they leave, at the expense of the country. I'm sure its possible to find a way to fix that.
Lobbying for profit--and getting jobs for Congressmen
The pharmaceutical industry is putting its army of lobbyists into overdrive as Congress works to complete a health care reform bill.
There are 3,000 registered health care lobbyists on Capitol Hill -- that's six for every single member of Congress. And in many cases, those lobbyists are former members of Congress who shaped laws that benefitted the industry they joined.
The so-called "revolving door" is perfectly legal, CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports. Yet it leads critics to ask whether some who are supposed to be watching out for taxpayers have other interests.
In 2003, the pharmaceutical industry got a multi-billion dollar windfall with Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage for seniors. Congressman Billy Tauzin, and Senators John Breaux and Don Nickles each held key roles in passing or shaping Part D. All three then left their government jobs and became lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry.
We have 50 state labs on tap for the great experiment of the nation.So let's unleash American creativity on the Health Care Problem.
I have been perplexed why those favoring government run universal health coverage have not been more active at the state level. Why do they insist this be done by an already overburdened federal government that can't seem to do much of anything right anymore?
My state, Washington, has had Democrat governors for the last 28 years. The Democrats have run the state legislature for most of the last 15 years and yet, they have offered no universal coverage proposals. The Republicans here can't stop them so why do they not try that here? Instead, they insist on supporting this Frankenstein monster called Obamacare imposed on everyone from Washington DC.
I have been perplexed why those favoring government run universal health coverage have not been more active at the state level. Why do they insist this be done by an already overburdened federal government that can't seem to do much of anything right anymore?
My state, Washington, has had Democrat governors for the last 28 years. The Democrats have run the state legislature for most of the last 15 years and yet, they have offered no universal coverage proposals. The Republicans here can't stop them so why do they not try that here? Instead, they insist on supporting this Frankenstein monster called Obamacare imposed on everyone from Washington DC.
Very good point. I know there is an organization pushing for single payer in MD ( Health Care Now, I believe), but as you say, I see no proposals at the state level. Is Vermont's single payer plan a done deal?
Very good point.
I know there is an organization pushing for single payer in MD ( Health Care Now, I believe), but as you say, I see no proposals at the state level. Is Vermont's single payer plan a done deal?
pssst: These details are little more than a distracting sideshow.
Promoting 50 separate systems with 50 separate sets of rules and 50 separate funding schemes
is as much of a problem as employer involvement or perpetuating the role of the HI providers.
pssst: These details are little more than a distracting sideshow.
Promoting 50 separate systems with 50 separate sets of rules and 50 separate funding schemes
is as much of a problem as employer involvement or perpetuating the role of the HI providers.
hth
Also a good point, but didn't the Canadian system start at the provincial level?
Man, oh, man, I tossed out the bait and you took it hook, line and sinker (just like I knew you would).
The problem with people who are clueless, is they just talk and talk and talk themselves into circles and then they step all over it.
Didn’t realize you were being set up for failure, did you?
Nah, you didn’t see this coming at all. You'll be like a deer in the headlights....of a train.
Did I mention I was a cop in another life?
I really enjoyed interrogating suspects. Sorry, I’ll undertake my best efforts concerning full-disclosure in the future.
Wow, don’t you look really stupid.
If I would be you be, I'd quit before you end up looking like a double-dumb-ass.
Let’s look at this……
I gave the average cost per year for Health Care Services per Enrollee, as reported by Heidi L. W. Golding before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs July 27, 2011.
Oooooops.
It's not my fault you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'd venture to guess that it never donned on you that just because someone is enrolled in the VA medical system, it does not logically follow that they were treated at the VA medical system during the year.
No, you didn't get it.
Now for the coup de grace….
The following is from one of those, um, you know, “singularly outmoded sources of information” you accused me of using.
This is Document GAO-12-908, otherwise known as the VETERANS’ HEALTH CARE BUDGET United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees, dated September 2012.
$39,600,000,000
$5,500,000,000
$5,400,000,000
-------------------
$50,500,000,000 spent on health care in 2012.
I now direct your attention to Page 2 of the same report which states….
In fiscal year 2011, approximately 6.2 million patients received health care from VA. In providing that care, VA operates 152 hospitals, 133 nursing homes, 824 community-based outpatient clinics, and other facilities through 21 regional health care networks.
$50.5 Billion spent for 6.2 Million veterans.
Would you like a sedative before I do the math?
$50,500,000,000 / 6,200,000 = $8,145.16 per veteran.
Sucker.
I just played you.
Oh, man, were you ever so easy.
That means this figure…
$8,145.16 per veteran
…is actually too low. With co-payments, reimbursements from Medicare, and private insurance, the actual amount would be 15%-25% higher.
I just thoroughly demolished your argument so you don't have any proof.
Well, wasn't that fun?
In the future, it would behoove you to do real research.
I hope you learned your lesson.
Schooling...
Mircea
Hmmm, let's see, if I used YOUR reasoning on healthcare expenditures of ALL Americans that have insurance and eliminate the 50 billion who do not, what is the cost per healthcare of "enrollees", just so we can compare with the VA enrollees in your little trap:
315 million Americans times an average 8,223 per capita equals= $2,590,245,000,000 total BUT---
less 50 million uninsured leaving 265 million with some type of insurance the average cost for those Americans is $9,775. Still worse than the VA AND it INCLUDES the lower cost paid by the VA since it is for all Americans.
And healthcare costs are generally estimated using the cost of all co-pays and premiums, so you cannot provide a figure and then "add in" more for co-pays and premiums.
Three degrees of higher education and you still find it necessary to play number games without revealing an apples to apples comparison.
But you have a personal need to "win" so no argument will ever disuade you from pursuing foolishness. You enjoy "tricking" people by providing intially misleading information and then saying you intentionally did not provide complete information so you could set a trap. This is like trying to argue with a racist or religious fanatic. So I choose to ignore your future posts given your insights are so much more "thoughtful" than the rest of us. It just isn't possible for an uneducated mind like mine (I once served as vice-president of development at a university before returning to the insurance industry) to comprehend.
Also a good point, but didn't the Canadian system start at the provincial level?
pssst: These details are little more than a distracting sideshow.
Attempts to draw comparisons let alone object lessons from systems that have been developed over 50 or 100 years in countries with a (populated) fraction of our land area or a fraction of our population or far more cohesive cultures is as much of a problem as promoting 50 separate systems with 50 separate sets of rules and 50 separate funding schemes employer involvement or perpetuating the role of the HI providers.
hth
On point: The approximately 1/3 of the US not covered by medicare, medicade, VA or tricare
still don't need that traditional overarching nosing into every corner of our lives health insurance scheme that everyone seems bent on installing.
It might be nice to have it but there is only one aspect of it that most really need help with
(until we are also old enough to qualify for medicare).
Which aspect is that? The expensive stuff. In particular the bankruptingly expensive stuff.
Focus on ways to ameliorate that concern.
We'll take care of the aspirins and occasional suture on our own.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-13-2013 at 09:11 AM..
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.
Lobbying for profit--and getting jobs for Congressmen
