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.
We should completely eliminate any private sector involvement in any aspect of the health care system. This can be done by nationalizing the direct care portions of the system and eliminating the need for private insurance company involvement.
We should:
Train health care personal from assistants to Doctors in government, state of federal, schools.
Facilities, including the schools, hospitals, nursing and elderly care are owned by the government.
All workers are paid government salaries, benefits and pensions.
Drug companies must sell only to the government.
Eliminate Drug Company advertizing.
Provide health care services all over the country based on population density.
Pay for everything with an all inclusive income tax on the top 10% of the incomes and excise taxes on legalized drugs.
That's just off the top. There is more that can be done to provide medical services to everyone regardless of ability to pay.
Smaller is not always better. Ask the ladies... ... But seriously the goal should be efficient government that serves its purpose not smaller government that's useless...
What reasons do you have for not wanting a Govt. funded health care system?
Have you any experience of a single payer system............ medicare/aid is nothing like a proper UHC.
Would be really interested to find out why you are against "socialized medicine" and if you have any actual experience to back up you not wanting it.
So you want people to be able to buy policies that they pay into, but may never get any benefit from? Before you jump in with "caveat emptor", let me say that you'd need a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out some of these policies. It's extremely likely that if you bought one of these stripped down policies, it would not pay out when you needed it. Add to that, no one, and that means no one, can predict what services they might need in the future, so the argument "I'm just going to buy what I need" is not valid, either.
While I"m not crazy about the idea of insurance being tied to employment, I think requiring people to buy individual policies is not the answer, either. These tend to cost considerably more than group policies do, and contain way more exclusions.
There is little evidence that many people are over-using health care.
There is little evidence (from the states that have done so) that tort reform will reduce costs significantly.
I'm all for more care being given at clinics instead of the ER; however, these clinics then have to be open and staffed 24/7, and they would have to take uninsured patients as well.
I think the best way to reduce costs is to remove as much government involvement in healthcare as we can. Cut down on all the administrative in triplicate garbage and remove all of the costs associated with fraud & waste. Admin costs alone account for over 1/3 of all healthcare costs and most of this is directly related to government intervention. Then make insurance needed as little as possible. Once you have the middle man removed, the costs will drop substantially. If people start working directly with their doctors, then we cut one more expense out of the loop. Insurance is directly responsible for driving up the costs associated with healthcare.
Go back and review my previous post too where the Republicans made proposals to benefit healthcare reform yet the Dems ignored all of them so that they could pass Obamacare and its control of the masses.
The ironic thing is that people know that fraud, waste and red tape are the defining characteristics of government and people think we should be entrusting our healthcare to them. Basically the last people to be involved with my health should be the government.
You can look at it that way or you can understand why any ecosystem would adapt to whatever circumstance there presented with. For instance if Pfizer pulls out of the market someone else will step in and take their place… Economics is driven by supply vs. demand not incentives to produce… If the market demands it someone will figure out how to get it to them…
Not if there is no profit to be made. Supply and demand dictates price. Every buss decision is risk vs reward. Take away the reward and no one is willing to assume the risk.
Doctors should be on SALARY and not paid per treatment. This causes a lot of unnecessary tests and running up of bills for the insurer AND the person...all so that the doctor will get a nice check in the end. Universal healthcare is the only way to go, NOT tied to employment. I had health insurance and had to leave a job due to personal reasons, that money that I paid into that health insurance was GONE, it didn't transfer to my new job or to my new health insurance company, it was just GONE. This isn't the 1950's any more where people stay at a job their whole life. And many employers also will only hire a crew of part-timers so that they don't have to give health benefits, so they screw a lot of people over to save a few bucks. Universal health care is the only way right now. Personally, I'm going to lose my family house and my $175k health insurance bill will STILL not be paid in full.
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 seriously the goal should be efficient government that serves its purpose not smaller government that's useless...
