What needs to be done about healthcare reform

[007]

And the name calling begins! Yes! You see, that's why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with anyone that can even remotely construed as being in support of Obamacare - the second you make a logical point that easily collapses the same stupid argument we hear everyday on Fox News, they just yell louder and walk away.
Doesnt it piss you off that your life means shit, Pale? Go to a nursing home and take a walk around. You'll walk away pale as a ghost and realize what I mean. You need to see someone with Alzheimer's, or who is profoundly retarded. It ain't pretty.

You ought to know, you started it. I'm neither lazy nor buying into something. I gave you an honest answer and you ridiculed me for it. So yes, fuck you for that.

And I don't need to go and see anything either. I'm a service connected disabled veteran, and I've seen enough carnage to last me a life time. No nursing home or some retard is going to shock me.

You want government run health care, I don't. It won't work. The government has never run a thing in history that didn't miserably fail. We HAD the best health care in the world. Now OWEbama has, "temporarily," turned it into a third world dump. The EU has just dumped their government run health care of 60 years because they found out it doesn't work. Canadians come here for health care, or used to. No, there's only one solution to our health care problems, which aren't that big, is to repeal that train wreck owebama care, and start over fresh from square one with sensible, workable solutions, two of which I already mentioned and you sneered at and called me lazy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Youre just buying into that lazy, keep the status-quo Fox News ideology. That still doesn't do a thing for all the millions of uninsured that must either a) Don't get sick, or b)If you get sick, die quickly.
What about those people?
REPUBLICAN PARTY = PARTY OF NO SOLUTIONS

No....The GOP offered up several proprosals to Obamacare and each one was not only shot down, the democrats flat out refused to discuss them.
Examples......The ability of Americans to buy insurance across state lines...
To buy high deductable catastrophic event policies.
The ability to join medical associations where patients pay as they go.
The ability to open up medical savings accounts where people's healthcare choices were not tied to their employment.
Each time democrats saw any of these and other ideas, they were shot down.

The goal of Obamacare is obvious. That is to create a single payer government run taxpayer funded socialist system where all medical professionals are governemnt employees and all medical facilities are operated by a federal buracracy.
What is shocking is that these supposedly well educated and intelligent people in Waqshington have only to look at the disaster that is socialized medicine in the EU and Canada. But no. Once again liberals continue to the same failed policies with the expectation of a different result.

 

[007]

And the name calling begins! Yes! You see, that's why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with anyone that can even remotely construed as being in support of Obamacare - the second you make a logical point that easily collapses the same stupid argument we hear everyday on Fox News, they just yell louder and walk away.
Doesnt it piss you off that your life means shit, Pale? Go to a nursing home and take a walk around. You'll walk away pale as a ghost and realize what I mean. You need to see someone with Alzheimer's, or who is profoundly retarded. It ain't pretty.

ahh he can just look in a mirror.

Be careful...

 

[Madeline]

And the name calling begins! Yes! You see, that's why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with anyone that can even remotely construed as being in support of Obamacare - the second you make a logical point that easily collapses the same stupid argument we hear everyday on Fox News, they just yell louder and walk away.
Doesnt it piss you off that your life means shit, Pale? Go to a nursing home and take a walk around. You'll walk away pale as a ghost and realize what I mean. You need to see someone with Alzheimer's, or who is profoundly retarded. It ain't pretty.

You ought to know, you started it. I'm neither lazy nor buying into something. I gave you an honest answer and you ridiculed me for it. So yes, fuck you for that.

And I don't need to go and see anything either. I'm a service connected disabled veteran, and I've seen enough carnage to last me a life time. No nursing home or some retard is going to shock me.

You want government run health care, I don't. It won't work. The government has never run a thing in history that didn't miserably fail. We HAD the best health care in the world. Now OWEbama has, "temporarily," turned it into a third world dump. The EU has just dumped their government run health care of 60 years because they found out it doesn't work. Canadians come here for health care, or used to. No, there's only one solution to our health care problems, which aren't that big, is to repeal that train wreck owebama care, and start over fresh from square one with sensible, workable solutions, two of which I already mentioned and you sneered at and called me lazy.

Pale, first, thankies from my heart for your service to this country.

Now, on to paying. You realize, it isn't just a question of paying claims? There is not nearly enough capacity in nursing home beds to handle my generation as infirmity sets in.....say, in 10 more years? I'd guess off the top of my head, we'll need at least FOUR times as many beds (I did try to find you some population data; my Google Fu failed me).

Health care devoures about 16.5% of US GDP at this time. What will happen when the elderly population of the US equals or exceeds the TOTAL US population in all other age groups? Healt care costs inflation rate last year was about 12%...against an CPI increase across all US sectors of 0% to 1%. This rate will continue climbing as advances in medicine make ever-more expensie heroic measures available to prolong the lives of the very old.

We MUST have this conversation. If we flatly refuse, we are effectively chosing to enslave our children and deprive them of health care.

So here's a hypothetical: should a 90 year old in good health otherwise receive a heart or liver transplant?

I say no.

What do you say?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Excuse me, on my earlier post. I meant to say the opposite, but it was a type error. Whenever you support Obamacare, people just shout you down and walk away because they can't stand your fundamental argument that Republicans offers no solution to the healthcare problem, and tells forty million people to go die if they get sick.

That's a lie..
There is not a healthcare crisis in this country.
We have an insurance crisis. There should be NO health coverage for anythign except major medical care.
If you have a cold , pay up..If you break your big toe , pay up..
If you have the flu, pay up....
If insurance were eliminated for well care and minor afflictions and injuries, costs to the patient would tumble..
I will explain...
If doctors did not have to deal with paperwork and administrative costs such as having to carry an excessive number of employees just to handle the red tape, they could operate their offices with just one or two people to file records.
Doctors which treat patients on a pay as you go basis would not have to worry about falling insurance reimbursements which again would allow doctors to lower their prices fro treatment...
For example. My Chiro.....He charges $105 for and adjustment with therapy...
The insurance carrier reimburses him $45 for the treatment.
30% of that is gobbled up by employee salaries and overhead. Another 20% of that goes to pay his insurances...By the time he gets paid he makes about $22.50 plus the $25 co pay...
From two years ago he has to see twice as many patients to make the same amount of money..If he dropped all insurance and treated people pay as you go, he could charge as little as $40 -$45 for the same services as listed above and make a very good living. He has three people working for him. Two administrators/ practitioners trained in the operation of stim pads, traction tables etc...They also do admitting ,paperwork and other office duties.
He also has an on site Comptroller to deal with the bureaucratic red tape and insurance paperwork, gate keepers and other issues..
If it were not for the insurance and all the baggage, he could have a one person office and reduce his expenses by a considerable amount. This would allow him ot lower his proces and also treat lower income folks that he cannot treat now because they do not have the type of insurance that covers his type of services.
Basically , health insurance sucks sideways..
I'd like ot see us go back to the days where we had familiy doctors that knew their patients. The patients paid their fees as they left the office. If they didn't have the full amount, the doctor knew them anyway. The patient would just pay up next time...
I am not that old...When I was a little kid our family doctor was this type of physician..Heck, his office was in his house....

 

[Madeline]

Excuse me, on my earlier post. I meant to say the opposite, but it was a type error. Whenever you support Obamacare, people just shout you down and walk away because they can't stand your fundamental argument that Republicans offers no solution to the healthcare problem, and tells forty million people to go die if they get sick.

That's a lie..
There is not a healthcare crisis in this country.
We have an insurance crisis. There should be NO health coverage for anythign except major medical care.
If you have a cold , pay up..If you break your big toe , pay up..
If you have the flu, pay up....
If insurance were eliminated for well care and minor afflictions and injuries, costs to the patient would tumble..
I will explain...
If doctors did not have to deal with paperwork and administrative costs such as having to carry an excessive number of employees just to handle the red tape, they could operate their offices with just one or two people to file records.
Doctors which treat patients on a pay as you go basis would not have to worry about falling insurance reimbursements which again would allow doctors to lower their prices fro treatment...
For example. My Chiro.....He charges $105 for and adjustment with therapy...
The insurance carrier reimburses him $45 for the treatment.
30% of that is gobbled up by employee salaries and overhead. Another 20% of that goes to pay his insurances...By the time he gets paid he makes about $22.50 plus the $25 co pay...
From two years ago he has to see twice as many patients to make the same amount of money..If he dropped all insurance and treated people pay as you go, he could charge as little as $40 -$45 for the same services as listed above and make a very good living. He has three people working for him. Two administrators/ practitioners trained in the operation of stim pads, traction tables etc...They also do admitting ,paperwork and other office duties.
He also has an on site Comptroller to deal with the bureaucratic red tape and insurance paperwork, gate keepers and other issues..
If it were not for the insurance and all the baggage, he could have a one person office and reduce his expenses by a considerable amount. This would allow him ot lower his proces and also treat lower income folks that he cannot treat now because they do not have the type of insurance that covers his type of services.
Basically , health insurance sucks sideways..
I'd like ot see us go back to the days where we had familiy doctors that knew their patients. The patients paid their fees as they left the office. If they didn't have the full amount, the doctor knew them anyway. The patient would just pay up next time...
I am not that old...When I was a little kid our family doctor was this type of physician..Heck, his office was in his house....

thereisnospoon, I can remember having the doctor make a house call to me when I was very young. I do understand your POV, and I suppose it is true, we have tremendous inefficiencies in our claims handling processes etc. that we could fix. (One reason we do is that a single MD will accept dozens of different insurance plans as well as government plans, and each has its own codes etc.)

I also agree we graduate way too many specialists and not near enough family doctors and that this needs to change. The AMA thinks so too.

But the changes you are discussing will not hold off the avalanche of health care demands that will be made by elderly Boomers in short order. If we're about the same age, can you honestly say you don't fear life as a nursing home patient just as I do?

 

[Big Fitz]

Uhhhh... repeal the whole shebang back to Medicare and Medicaid. Get government out of the medical industry except in regulation of fraud and consumer protection.

Include also ending industry getting to write off health benefits for tax purposes, but allow individuals to do it. That ONE change in the tax code would revolutionize this nation and in how we get paid and secure our ability to insure ourselves and never fear job loss meaning insurance loss.

WTF? How in the hell does driving up the cost of health insurance advance anyone's interest? You do realize a deduction is worthless unless there are sufficient, adequate tax dollars prepaid that can be refunded?

I think you've been dipping into the FAUX News kool aid again, my Big Fizzy friend.

It's hard for me to hit kool aid served by someone I don't watch.

Costs are going to go up on healthcare thanks to Obamacare. Why? Because you're going to do a few things VERY effectively.

1. create a worse doctor shortage.
2. close private insurers down and leave only government insurance.
3. increase usage because people will want to utilize 'free' services to their fullest
4. take away incentive to be price conscious because nobody's trying to prevent overcharging.
5. creates onerous taxation regulations on all business and laws to threaten them with criminal charges if they make mistakes increasing the cost of business and bureaucracy.
6. Criminalizes citizens by forcing them to get health insurance even if they don't want to, allowing the IRS to fine them thousands of dollars.

This shit needs to be repealed.

Now what do you get by allowing private citizens to deduct the cost of health insurance personally bought health insurance, and ending the deductions for business?

1. The bureaucatic costs on business to administrate employee healthcare and be involved in those decisions.
2. Frees capital to be paid to employees in cash instead allowing more economic freedom to buy the healthcare the individual needs most, not a 'plan that won't fit.
3. Allows the security of an individual to keep insurance even if unemployed as long as they pay the premiums.
4. Greater competition for purchasers decreases prices.
5. Single payer forces patients to be VERY aware of costs, forcing frugalty and preventing overuse, making sure more health care is available to all.
6. Removes government bureaucracy in administering health care.

Now come on, why wouldn't you be for at least this?

 

[Madeline]

Uhhhh... repeal the whole shebang back to Medicare and Medicaid. Get government out of the medical industry except in regulation of fraud and consumer protection.

Include also ending industry getting to write off health benefits for tax purposes, but allow individuals to do it. That ONE change in the tax code would revolutionize this nation and in how we get paid and secure our ability to insure ourselves and never fear job loss meaning insurance loss.

WTF? How in the hell does driving up the cost of health insurance advance anyone's interest? You do realize a deduction is worthless unless there are sufficient, adequate tax dollars prepaid that can be refunded?

I think you've been dipping into the FAUX News kool aid again, my Big Fizzy friend.

It's hard for me to hit kool aid served by someone I don't watch.

Costs are going to go up on healthcare thanks to Obamacare. Why? Because you're going to do a few things VERY effectively.

1. create a worse doctor shortage.
2. close private insurers down and leave only government insurance.
3. increase usage because people will want to utilize 'free' services to their fullest
4. take away incentive to be price conscious because nobody's trying to prevent overcharging.
5. creates onerous taxation regulations on all business and laws to threaten them with criminal charges if they make mistakes increasing the cost of business and bureaucracy.
6. Criminalizes citizens by forcing them to get health insurance even if they don't want to, allowing the IRS to fine them thousands of dollars.

This shit needs to be repealed.

Now what do you get by allowing private citizens to deduct the cost of health insurance personally bought health insurance, and ending the deductions for business?

1. The bureaucatic costs on business to administrate employee healthcare and be involved in those decisions.
2. Frees capital to be paid to employees in cash instead allowing more economic freedom to buy the healthcare the individual needs most, not a 'plan that won't fit.
3. Allows the security of an individual to keep insurance even if unemployed as long as they pay the premiums.
4. Greater competition for purchasers decreases prices.
5. Single payer forces patients to be VERY aware of costs, forcing frugalty and preventing overuse, making sure more health care is available to all.
6. Removes government bureaucracy in administering health care.

Now come on, why wouldn't you be for at least this?

Big Fitz, this deserves it's own thread, so as not to render this discussion unmanagable. I am less and less happy with Obamacare all the time....but hardly anyone seems to know much about what it calls for. I didn't realize that you had studied up on it.

Wanna go for it, and I will follow you?

 

[Big Fitz]

WTF? How in the hell does driving up the cost of health insurance advance anyone's interest? You do realize a deduction is worthless unless there are sufficient, adequate tax dollars prepaid that can be refunded?

I think you've been dipping into the FAUX News kool aid again, my Big Fizzy friend.

It's hard for me to hit kool aid served by someone I don't watch.

Costs are going to go up on healthcare thanks to Obamacare. Why? Because you're going to do a few things VERY effectively.

1. create a worse doctor shortage.
2. close private insurers down and leave only government insurance.
3. increase usage because people will want to utilize 'free' services to their fullest
4. take away incentive to be price conscious because nobody's trying to prevent overcharging.
5. creates onerous taxation regulations on all business and laws to threaten them with criminal charges if they make mistakes increasing the cost of business and bureaucracy.
6. Criminalizes citizens by forcing them to get health insurance even if they don't want to, allowing the IRS to fine them thousands of dollars.

This shit needs to be repealed.

Now what do you get by allowing private citizens to deduct the cost of health insurance personally bought health insurance, and ending the deductions for business?

1. The bureaucatic costs on business to administrate employee healthcare and be involved in those decisions.
2. Frees capital to be paid to employees in cash instead allowing more economic freedom to buy the healthcare the individual needs most, not a 'plan that won't fit.
3. Allows the security of an individual to keep insurance even if unemployed as long as they pay the premiums.
4. Greater competition for purchasers decreases prices.
5. Single payer forces patients to be VERY aware of costs, forcing frugalty and preventing overuse, making sure more health care is available to all.
6. Removes government bureaucracy in administering health care.

Now come on, why wouldn't you be for at least this?

Big Fitz, this deserves it's own thread, so as not to render this discussion unmanagable. I am less and less happy with Obamacare all the time....but hardly anyone seems to know much about what it calls for. I didn't realize that you had studied up on it.

Wanna go for it, and I will follow you?

Thanks Maddie... but really, it's just my points on what's gone very very wrong with health care in this country. It's more like a partial thread at est, so a better addition here for now.

 

[Madeline]

Well, okay. Lemme go point by point, since I understand so little.

I thought Obamacare altered the permissible terms of privately-issued health insurance policies, e.g., eliminating any lifetime cap. As opposed to the universal coverage/single payor system most liberals (like me) really wanted.

Is that true?

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, okay. Lemme go point by point, since I understand so little.

I thought Obamacare altered the permissible terms of privately-issued health insurance policies, e.g., eliminating any lifetime cap. As opposed to the universal coverage/single payor system most liberals (like me) really wanted.

Is that true?

It's kind of a moot point when health insurance companies are flatly stating, they will go out of business if they do almost all of the Obamacare mandates. McDonald's health insurer has already passed that information along, and now Micky D has let the world know that Obamacare will force them to lose insurance because it will bankrupt the insurer. They are just doing it 4 years earlier than what the supporters of this bill wanted. See, they wanted this to happen AFTER the elections, and have the insurers be good little pigs and not squeal till it was too late.

The real goal of this bill is to create government healthcare from cradle to grave. This is just step one and there is so much garbage in Obamacare that nobody's going to be able to abide by or successfully do all it mandates. Much of it unconstitutional because it violates contract law forces purchases on the citizenry of a product

So yes, you're going to end up with single payer ultimately. But that won't fix the problems as that single payer will quickly have to ration care or go bankrupt as well. That's why the oft mocked 'death panels' are in there as 'managed care'. A bureaucrat will decide what care you are elegible based on actuarial charts just like what the insurance companies use now. The really bad news is that unless you are VERY politically connected, you have no second option to seek help elsewhere because the government will be the only authorized provider of health services thanks to the single payer system.

Not to mention, they will use this legislation to claim the right to control every aspect of your life from hobbies to career to diet to exercise to spending. It's all their business now unless it's repealed.

 

[Madeline]

Well, okay. Lemme go point by point, since I understand so little.

I thought Obamacare altered the permissible terms of privately-issued health insurance policies, e.g., eliminating any lifetime cap. As opposed to the universal coverage/single payor system most liberals (like me) really wanted.

Is that true?

It's kind of a moot point when health insurance companies are flatly stating, they will go out of business if they do almost all of the Obamacare mandates. McDonald's health insurer has already passed that information along, and now Micky D has let the world know that Obamacare will force them to lose insurance.

The real goal of this bill is to create government healthcare from cradle to grave. This is just step one and there is so much garbage in Obamacare that nobody's going to be able to abide by or successfully do all it mandates.

So yes, you're going to end up with single payer ultimately. But that won't fix the problems as that single payer will quickly have to ration care or go bankrupt as well. That's why the oft mocked 'death panels' are in there as 'managed care'. A bureaucrat will decide what care you are elegible based on actuarial charts just like what the insurance companies use now. The really bad news is that unless you are VERY politically connected, you have no second option to seek help elsewhere because the government will be the only authorized provider of health services thanks to the single payer system.

Not to mention, they will use this legislation to claim the right to control every aspect of your life from hobbies to career to diet to exercise to spending. It's all their business now unless it's repealed.

It is not a moot point, Big Fitz. I need some building block-level information just to process what you're saying...so please be patient with me.

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay, let's look at it logically.

1. The government mandates actions be taken by the insurance companies that historically have been shown to be a net drain on financial resources.

2. The insurance company faces insolvency by obeying the guidelines.

3. The company must it's best course of action in which to stay in business. Often this means cutting unprofitable services.

4. If the company does not cut unprofitable drains on their resources, they go out of business and not only financially damage their shareholders, they harm those people they can still help outside of their programs that will be cut.

5. If the company does not make decisions based on financial solvency, they cannot help anyone.

Now...

Obamacare has put many untenable, but good feeling mandates into the act. Ask yourself this question. If you owned an insurance company, what would your goals be? Number one should be 'stay in business'. Number two should be 'provide for my customers at the best price possible that profits them and me."

Now, you are a professional, so you price your product to give a good balance between meeting your customer's needs and keeping you well funded against the unforseen ravages of business and a tidy profit (Insurance companies rarely profit in the extreme as they most often pay out ALMOST as much as they take in.) You price risk and don't make any dumb financial decisions. Those who use your product the most, often have to pay the most, while those who use it very little pay the least because they get the benefit of being a very light drain on your resources.

Now, the government tells you that you must do some things that your analysis has proven to be big time money losers. They will, sooner or later, bankrupt you. They take away the tools you could have implemented to protect you from financial insolvency because they call them 'cruel', 'unfair' and 'mean spirited' or even 'racist'. You've never done anything of the kind, of course. You provided your service to anyone who could pay you your fees so you can continue to keep it up and grow for others to be helped.

So, you are left with a decision. By law you have to slit your own financial neck by providing services that no one does because they are financially unsound. You are being told to commit financial suicide for the need of people who cannot pay you their proper share of expenses. So what are you to do? The best answer is lobby for exemption. The second step is to slash services affected by these laws. The last step is to shut down business and go into a different industry.

McDonald's and it's insurer are doing step one... exemption before they have to do more drastic things. It's just good business sense because nobody wins if the only thing you can do is go out of business due to financial pressures making you unprofitable.

I hope that's enough building blocks for you on that regard on why it's a moot point with these private insurance mandates. They are going to collapse the private market by creating standard that cannot be met except by the government. This of course both ends the free market and capitalism and installs a socialist system in a slow but steady progress.

The fact that McD's screamed way too early for them (they wanted it to start in 2014 when they would be far more safe) and now, people are REALLY wise to their game and goals.

 

[Madeline]

Okay, I follow you, I think. We agree the method Obamacare uses to expand coverage is to alter the legally permissible terms of the contract between the insurance company and its policyholders, as opposed to a single payer system.

Your premise is, these changes create new exposure for insurance companies. I agree.

Your conclusion is, insurance companies will become insolvent unless they cease writing policies. I disagree.

When an insurer has larger or new exposures on a policy form, that company must -- not may, must -- submit/seek approval on new policy forms and a new rate plan (schedule of premium prices). The rate plan must -- not may, must -- be actuarially sound. It has to be prepared by, signed off on by and approved at the state DOI by members of the American Academy of Actuaries......very highly paid mathematical geniuses.

Your logical sequence of events assumes that the new coverage limits required by Obamacare cannot be measured and rated. That is just impossible, Big Fitz. There's tons and tons of data around on health care foir humans....there'll be no difficulty in rating.

Am I not seeing something than you think I should?

 

[Big Fitz]

We agree the method Obamacare uses to expand coverage is to alter the legally permissible terms of the contract between the insurance company and its policyholders, as opposed to a single payer system.

Which is unconstitutional, particularly in existing contracts.

Your logical sequence of events assumes that the new coverage limits required by Obamacare cannot be measured and rated.

Not quite. I'm saying they will not be permitted, by law, to appropriately price themselves, causing them to be inherently insolvent. They either have to price risk or ration care, and if they are prevented from doing neither, you just don't write the policy. But if you will be forced to write the policy, you go a step further and shut down the whole system and leave the industry.

This also causes unemployment and strain on the economy at large above and beyond the problems created by Obamacare in helping the sick.

Jason Lewis does a better job of talking about it than I can. Then again he's got the economics degree. His show is very good when dealing with economic issues and the real effect of legislation on economies.

You do not believe that insurance companies will not have problems with the new mandates. Why? They themselves are already indicating they can't remain in business if they cannot raise prices on those individuals who utilize a lot of medical services, unless they raise it on everyone in a community block. This unfairly penalizes those in good health and not inadvertantly draining resources available and encourages overuse.

They can't refuse to take someone who is already sick either by these mandates. This means I have no incentive as the consumer to pay premiums while healthy, because I know they can't refuse me. So I save my premiums and don't help the company prepare for when I need to use their services by denying them the funds they could have been making before I get sick. So if everyone waits to get sick before buying insurance, the coffers are drained before you even get started.

So seriously, why do you think these companies will be solvant if they obey the laws?

 

[Big Fitz]

BTW, for decreasing costs. Most hospitals give up to a 50% discount if you pay cash at time of treatment.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

You still do not answer the fundamental question - "What about the 40 million uninsured working Americans, whose lives are valued less than a human being that even after 50 years of living never progressed past the stage of an infant?"
All those criticisms do just that - they criticize. I agree with the principle of Obamacare, not all of its exact specifications. There has still never been an exact, explicit Republican plan that gives an answer to the question that I've been trying to ask. No matter what, the Republican party has proven itself the benefactor of the rich, whom it consists of. Why can't they just be honest and admit that? Just come forth and loudly proclaim in front of a bunch of cameras, "When it comes down to it, I have my wealth; why should I give a fuck about someone who didn't succeed as I do?" The problem is that unregulated capitalism - the essence of the true, conservative philosophy - will always create a perpetual state of the haves and have-nots. The problem is also that the true leaders and inheritors of this movement (I refer to the neo-cons of 1990s old, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whom anyone must admire for their accomplishments) are disgraced by their successors today, the utter idiots that make up the Tea Party, who are too stupid to choose truly intelligent leaders (e.g. Palin, Beck, who only like letting themselves be on their posters so long as the jerk-off Tea Party people buy their book)
Enough people see this hypocrisy and betrayal of the very ideals they are a mere spin-off of. I want a Republican charismatic enough to come forth and say: "I believe in occupying the Middle East, through force and diplomacy, because it sustains both or military industrial complex and our insatiable thirst for oil." I would vote for him! Because, like everyone else on this message board, I like my truck and I like my long hot showers. Imperialism is beneficial, so long as it is lopsided. It worked for us in Europe, but not in Vietnam or Iraq.
So pleace, don't patronize us with a solution, so much better than Obamacare, that is really nothing more than an admission that frankly, the Republican party doesnt give a fuck if you live or die or can't afford to go see the doctor you need to. Give us an honest solution. Admit that if you can't afford health insurance, then fuck you. It makes sense. Social darwinism is nothing new, and it indirectly led to the rise of destructive fascism.
I like Obama because he tells it like it is. His solutions didn't work for political reasons, both right and wrong, and I'll vote for him in 2012 because he's the lesser of two evils. Give me a Republican who has the balls to stand up for his core beliefs, that so many of them desert (except for Ron Paul) because they're pansy politicians - and I'll vote for him.

 

[Madeline]

BTW, for decreasing costs. Most hospitals give up to a 50% discount if you pay cash at time of treatment.

Well, who knows, Big Fitz. I have never met anyone who paid COD for an operation. But it is true hospitals shift costs among groups of patients, segregated by their insurance. The uninsured pay the least (usually). The Medicare patients' prices are next lowest (usually) followed by Medicaid and then, at the top of the heap, privately insured patients.

But Big Fitz, an appendix operation on two similiar patients does not have two different prices in any real economic sense of the word. What's going on is price manipulation...hospitals have contracts with private insurance companies about their prices, and they max out those expenses to help offset the cost of care to the uninsured and the government-insured. There's a whole lot of evil doing that goes on behind this price manipulation. It's one reason most states prohibit MDs from referring their own patients to labs they own. Trust me, it helps if we have just ONE price everyone is charged.

Elsewise known as a single payor system, but we did not get that from Obamacare.

 

[Madeline]

wyomingpatriot wrote in part:

You still do not answer the fundamental question - "What about the 40 million uninsured working Americans, whose lives are valued less than a human being that even after 50 years of living never progressed past the stage of an infant?"

I have a different take on this than most everyone else. Obamacare has no provision for dental care at all, and very little for any sort of mental health care. IMO, virtually everyone is underinsured....and that just further reinforces what I said before.

We cannot shift so much of our health care dollars, health care capacity and health care workforce towards the elderly unless we are willing to savagely deprive the young of care.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm fried right now so I'm going to comprehend only this much.

Well, who knows, Big Fitz. I have never met anyone who paid COD for an operation.

I just shelled out cash for over $5000 in medical tests for sleep apnea plus the machine. If I had insurance, the price would have been 40-75% higher.

Trust me, it helps if we have just ONE price everyone is charged.

After what I went through to get the tests scheduled and find the prices for it? damn right we need one price or total transparency in prices. That doesn't require a single payer system. It requires a change in price reporting and making em public for comparison shopping. A good price war would drop prices for healthcare precipitously. Just like every other industry.

See the issue here should not be about how government runs health care. They shouldn't really be involved in that at all. What we should be talking about is consumer based solutions to make healthcare much more like other 'essential' markets like food and heating oil or electricity. Government should be worried about who's trying to cheat us and making sure our medications are safe for consumption. They shouldn't be worried about making me take my next physical or getting tests done. But this is now become pre-paid medicine, not insurance.