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.
Recently, I saw a program that noted there is an increasing trend to see Doctors who are no longer taking insurance of any kind. And, at least according to this report, the physicans were able to reduce their office visit charges and other overheads - and, they have not seen any reduction in their patient loads as a result -
Walk-in "clinics", in airports and shopping malls, are also cropping up in greater numbers (I have several that recently opened near me) - $49.00 for a physical. $35.00 for an "office" visit - got the sniffles, $35.00.
Seems like a decent addition to providing lower cost healthcare
I have just one thing to say: Why would a president who thinks we are SO 'compasionate' to take care of the whole world in his hands, ask the congress for a $18billion increase for the Army and Police in a foreing country, and allow to pay a minimum of $25billion per year for a war that has meaning to hardly anyone, BUT deny a $2billion dollar increase to give health insurance to the children of hard working families in his own country??? It hurts. It is insulting, a slap in the face.
Recently, I saw a program that noted there is an increasing trend to see Doctors who are no longer taking insurance of any kind. And, at least according to this report, the physicans were able to reduce their office visit charges and other overheads - and, they have not seen any reduction in their patient loads as a result -
Walk-in "clinics", in airports and shopping malls, are also cropping up in greater numbers (I have several that recently opened near me) - $49.00 for a physical. $35.00 for an "office" visit - got the sniffles, $35.00.
Seems like a decent addition to providing lower cost healthcare
when people start allowing themselves to think outside of the box, with a optimistic open mind these are the types of things that start to develope , that is, of course if your priority is to fix the problem not expand the government! Imagine, if everyone was reimbursed for their medical bills, only after they had proved that they got the most cost effective treament as possible! I personally had knee surgery, before I had it done I basically knew exactly what it was going to cost and actually eliminated some of the frills that someone with full insurance wouldnt even think twice about, because they dont care what it cost because in their mind the insurance is covering it, and thats all they care about. If every person was required to scrutinize their medical bills and take personal responsibility for what is being paid we would start bringing some accountability into the system! the incestous relationship between the insurance companys and the healthcare system is the reason costs are out of control when we get in between the two we can start to bring the costs down and make healthcare more affordable for the so called middle class!
You mean decrease the quality and frequency of their care to bring down costs for people who don't have to buy insurance? The most "cost effective" treatment doesn't necessarily mean the best treatment, or even necessarily an effective treatment at all. It would be pretty "cost effective" for me to try to treat a melanoma with Aspirin and chewing tobacco but that probably wouldn't be the best choice.
You mean decrease the quality and frequency of their care to bring down costs for people who don't have to buy insurance? The most "cost effective" treatment doesn't necessarily mean the best treatment, or even necessarily an effective treatment at all. It would be pretty "cost effective" for me to try to treat a melanoma with Aspirin and chewing tobacco but that probably wouldn't be the best choice.
as i said, a closed mind that cant think beyond the only answer is government, is not going to solve the problem!
Closed mind? My mind may be closed, I try to keep it open but I always suspect that ideology may drive many of my opinions more than logic, try to keep that to a minimum but it happens to everyone... In fact my self-descriptive subtitle is a perfect depiction of my personality, as truly I am nothing more than a brainwashed drone and partisan hack who can't see the forest through my rose-colored glass trees of pampered, effeminate and disgusting liberalism.
But... let's turn it around. Is there any economic/healthcare situation where you could conceive significant government intervention as being a good thing? Don't call a kettle black if you've got a 500 pound banana chocolate cake burning under you 20 watt heat lamp out back.
Closed mind? My mind may be closed, I try to keep it open but I always suspect that ideology may drive many of my opinions more than logic, try to keep that to a minimum but it happens to everyone... In fact my self-descriptive subtitle is a perfect depiction of my personality, as truly I am nothing more than a brainwashed drone and partisan hack who can't see the forest through my rose-colored glass trees of pampered, effeminate and disgusting liberalism.
But... let's turn it around. Is there any economic/healthcare situation where you could conceive significant government intervention as being a good thing? Don't call a kettle black if you've got a 500 pound banana chocolate cake burning under you 20 watt heat lamp out back.
as i have said earlier outside of national defense I believe we should be looking at decreasing government in every area not increasing it,that being said the first step right now that we should take in fixing the healthcare system is medical savings accounts which would eliminate the insurance companys and would automatically give everyone more options therefore bringing more competition into the system and you would start to see costs drop exponentialy! so to answer your question , in effect that would be government involvment because it would be in the form of tax deferments of some sort!
Let's play this game. Name 3 major issues on which you disagree with the prevailing "conservative" opinion of what should be done about them.
I'll try first, from the other side, but as I said before, it'll be hard for me because I'm a brainwashed partisan drone.
Let's see...
1. I don't agree with most smoking bans, maybe because of self interest, I'm not really adamant about this, though, I guess the other side has some good points but I'd like to be able to smoke in a restaurant, although really I should quit...
2. I think that non-deadly type recreational drugs should be legalized/regulated and the really bad ones should be offered for free to addicts in small doses in a heavily controlled, supervised environment to reduce street violence (not an ideal solution but I'd rather have crackheads going to their little supervized slice of coke paradise than having crack dealers killing kids in their beds with stray bullets)
3. I think late term abortions should be illegal except in dire circumstances.
Pretty flacid, weak differences I have with the "norm" of liberalism perhaps? That's because I'm an ideologically driven monster with logic subservient to emotion and emotion subservient to the MAN who controls me... your turn now? My three sucked.
Last edited by fishmonger; 09-27-2007 at 09:45 AM..
Let me offer this suggestion (one that I have forwarded to my Congressional Representatives who have actually been communicating with me on it)
Yes - there are those who are uninsured or under insured that perhaps need some assistance. But, rather than change the entire system, adjust the system a little:
Instead of having a single payer system, make it a "needs based" system. Instead of government taking over the insurance system, have the government provide grants to those who have shown a financial "need" for insurance assistance and let the consumer purchase their own insurance.
The Government currently has in place a "Means Test" for certain programs already.
Say a family of 4 has net disposable income under a certain dollar figure: for discussions sake, say $50,000. Say that family of four can purchase basic private health insurance for $6,000 a year (this is just an example). The Federal (or State) can issue a check to the insurance company for that premium - and let the insurance company issue the coverage.
What you would do is a) remove the additional layer of bureaucracy that would be needed to run a single payer system b) allow the consumer to purchase basic insurance of their choosing c) not interfere with private business d) not make the taxpayers responsible for a multi trillion dollar tax burden
While there are those without insurance (numbers vary as to how many), there are those who have VOLUNTARILIY chosen NOT to have insurance - for whatever reason - most often they would rather spend the money on their car (or other such thing) versus the insurance. There are those who clearly have the financial means to pay for their own insurance. AND, it would create an entire new "Insurance Pool" to spread the risk out thereby keeping premiums at a minimum.
But, a MAJORITY of Americans already HAVE insurance. We do not need to change the entire system for them. Let them continue with their current plans -
BUT, for those TRULY IN NEED, insurance can be made available -
There would need to be some legislation dealing with pre existing conditions - a major issue IMO -
If the goal is to make sure Americans have adequate health insurance to protect them from catastrophic financial disaster, this might well help them.
Anyway, as I said, several of my members of Congress have been communicating with me (through their staff) regarding this - at least I was not ignored
Let me offer this suggestion (one that I have forwarded to my Congressional Representatives who have actually been communicating with me on it)
Yes - there are those who are uninsured or under insured that perhaps need some assistance. But, rather than change the entire system, adjust the system a little:
Instead of having a single payer system, make it a "needs based" system. Instead of government taking over the insurance system, have the government provide grants to those who have shown a financial "need" for insurance assistance and let the consumer purchase their own insurance.
The Government currently has in place a "Means Test" for certain programs already.
Say a family of 4 has net disposable income under a certain dollar figure: for discussions sake, say $50,000. Say that family of four can purchase basic private health insurance for $6,000 a year (this is just an example). The Federal (or State) can issue a check to the insurance company for that premium - and let the insurance company issue the coverage.
What you would do is a) remove the additional layer of bureaucracy that would be needed to run a single payer system b) allow the consumer to purchase basic insurance of their choosing c) not interfere with private business d) not make the taxpayers responsible for a multi trillion dollar tax burden
While there are those without insurance (numbers vary as to how many), there are those who have VOLUNTARILIY chosen NOT to have insurance - for whatever reason - most often they would rather spend the money on their car (or other such thing) versus the insurance. There are those who clearly have the financial means to pay for their own insurance. AND, it would create an entire new "Insurance Pool" to spread the risk out thereby keeping premiums at a minimum.
But, a MAJORITY of Americans already HAVE insurance. We do not need to change the entire system for them. Let them continue with their current plans -
BUT, for those TRULY IN NEED, insurance can be made available -
There would need to be some legislation dealing with pre existing conditions - a major issue IMO -
If the goal is to make sure Americans have adequate health insurance to protect them from catastrophic financial disaster, this might well help them.
Anyway, as I said, several of my members of Congress have been communicating with me (through their staff) regarding this - at least I was not ignored
I think you're on the right track here. I think there need to be some kind of compromise that will allow people who currently are uninsured to obtain coverage be it through subsidized premium from the government or otherwise but also allow people who are happy with their current insurance to keep that. Some issues such as pre-existing conditions need to be addressed as well as the whole process of insurance companies dictating much of the care. To the individual person, he/she shouldn't have to worry about filing claims, wondering if they will get approved etc.
To me, I believe that having proper coverage is a right and that becoming sick shouldn't cause you the extreme financial hardships that it can today.
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.
