I've come to realize that the newer buzzword seems to be "Universal Coverage" instead of "Socialized Medicine". The plans that I read about seem to want to construct a government mandated system that incorporates all the HMOs and insurance companies.
I think this is wrong. One of the problems with our system is that it's got too many fingers in the pie. I'm in favor of a single payer, British style system or else keeping the present free for all we have now. I think the Democrats, who are the most likely to be in favor of a big government program like this, are too afraid to take on the powerful lobbies of HMOs and Insurance companies.
If we come up with a hybrid system like is being proposed, we are in for even more regulatory confusion and mess than we are even seeing now.
I think a single payer, government run socialized system is the best option. I also think that there must be strict tort reform that goes along with it to protect healthcare providers from frivilous lawsuits.
No. Not like YOU mean it. You mean, since the gov't is beholding to the people, can't the government do ANYTHING, in the name of the people? No. The government was specifically limited to prevent just what you propose.
~faith,
Timothy.
No, actually I mean if we the people vote yahoos into the governing seats it is we the people who are even bigger yahoos, so we need to be WAY more selective and DEMAND that those we choose to govern, do "we the peoples" bidding.
How can we achieve a system that puts individuals in charge of their own healthcare by enabling them to purchase services for themselves and by making providers acountable to them, not the government or insurance company?
HSA and actual health insurance against catastrophic loss (as opposed to the prepaid plans that are erroneously deemed 'insurance' today.)
You know the free market is the answer. Look at OTC meds as compared to the gov't controlled market (Prescriptions). You are not the customer for prescription meds: you doctor is. Therefore, the pricing is not structured to what YOU would choose - the choice has been taken out of your hands and, as a result, so has the price.
But, the OTC market: wow! What choice, and what affordable pricing. WHEN, OH WHEN was the last time you paid $100 for an OTC drug? The market can only price what the market will bear.
Take that control OUT of the hands of the consumer, and the market no longer cares ABOUT the consumer. The market only cares about its customer and THAT is the person that pays.
Once you are completely circumvented from the decision making process, government, in combination with their lobbyists, will make all your health care decisions. In those smoke-filled rooms, you can bet that YOUR BEST INTERESTS will not be under discussion.
No, actually I mean if we the people vote yahoos into the governing seats it is we the people who are even bigger yahoos, so we need to be WAY more selective and DEMAND that those we choose to govern, do "we the peoples" bidding.
The Federal monster is SO out of control that ANYBODY YOU COULD VOTE into power would be corrupted, in weeks, if not minutes. The power is too intoxicating for even the most honest and well-intentioned person.
It's a lie to suggest that we can control these people. The FIRST thing they did was to make rules that SO FAVOR incumbents, that incumbents win 94% of the time.
But you will DEMAND? Please. They stopped listening to you the moment they got elected for the first time. Feel free to DEMAND all you like.
I would be much more reassured by your ideas if they were run at the State and local level. At least there, the politicians are approachable. But then, that approachability is EXACTLY why progressives want these to be Federal issues. They don't want 'we the people' to have the power to mess up their wonderful planning.
The sooner we get the insurance industry out of health care, the simpler ALL our jobs will be.
The sooner we get the government out of health care, the sooner the insurance industry will become, of necessity, more accountable to their customers. 'They' only get away with what they do because your patients simply aren't their customers.
Improvement will NEVER happen so long as the government, through power channeled through your local employer, IS the only customer of note for Big Insurance.
That's why I advocate a system of universal coverage that provides a basic package of health services for every US citizen and is administered at the state level. I think the states are in a much better position to decide what their populations need. I also would have this system administered by a panel of experts in the health, financial, and legal fields rather than politicians. All of the monies that are currently paid to the insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid would instead go into a fund that would provide every citizen with preventive care and basic health services. Those who are wealthier can always buy more coverage if they want it, and nobody would be allowed to "opt out" (like with auto insurance) so the contributions would come from the entire population---not just those who are employed or who can afford insurance premiums.
I'm sure there are a gazillion things wrong with this idea, but almost nothing can be worse than 40+ million uninsured and underinsured Americans. We need universal health care, and we need it sooner rather than later!
Let me ask you this, why would nobody be able to 'opt out'? If it's such a good idea, why couldn't it compete for a place at the table? Or rather, if you have to compel participation, aren't you admitting that it's not really a good idea for those you would compel? Aren't you really pointing out the inherent flaw of such a system, that it could only be supported through compulsion?
The Federal monster is SO out of control that ANYBODY YOU COULD VOTE into power would be corrupted, in weeks, if not minutes. The power is too intoxicating for even the most honest and well-intentioned person.
It's a lie to suggest that we can control these people. The FIRST thing they did was to make rules that SO FAVOR incumbents, that incumbents win 94% of the time.
But you will DEMAND? Please. They stopped listening to you the moment they got elected for the first time. Feel free to DEMAND all you like.
I would be much more reassured by your ideas if they were run at the State and local level. At least there, the politicians are approachable. But then, that approachability is EXACTLY why progressives want these to be Federal issues. They don't want 'we the people' to have the power to mess up their wonderful planning.
~faith,
Timothy.
So aren't the state and local yahoos corrupt too? What would you suggest, a revolution? Anarchy?
I am not thinking theory only. How can Mississippi possibly find the money for healthcare for all?
My state among many supports infrastructure, education, and other NEEDS that smaller less affluent states cannot afford.
I think this is good.
In the here ans now Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are not currently successful.
HSAs do not control costs. They shift costs from the insurers to the patient.
They also have no or minimal impact on the 10% of the population that account for 69% of healthcare spending.
HSAs do nothing to increase access or reduce the number of uninsured.
HSAs are combined with limited, high deductible health plans, exposing consumers to high out-of-pocket costs which leads to rationing based on ability to pay.
HSAs encourage consumers to gamble with their health. Those experiencing an illness or injury may suddenly find their high deductible plan which may also include caps on payments for services subjects them to massive debt and financial ruin.
HSAs discourage prevention. Patients are more likely to forego primary and preventive care, and to delay other needed care. That can lead to worsened health outcomes, as well as more expensive healthcare costs.
HSAs increase administrative costs, such as the servicing fees paid to the financial institutions to manage the accounts — beyond the 30% share of administrative costs already consumed by private health care for billing, other paperwork, and profits.
HSAs deplete funds from the insurance risk pool. While the poor and sick quickly deplete any HSA funds, the rich and healthy retain their unspent money which would have previously gone into the pool to help subsidize care for the sick. The dollars removed from the system will likely need to be replaced by increasing premiums, additional other fees or cutting benefits for those still in.
Many consumers with HSAs are dissatisfied. A June, 2005 study by the pro-HSA McKinsey consulting firm found 56% of those with HSAs were less satisfied than with their previous health plans.
HSA rules about what they can cover and what expenses apply to the deductible are so complicated that Bruce Bodaken, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California, said he can’t understand his own plan.
HSAs amount to another tax break for the wealthy who have already been showered with tax breaks by the Bush Administration. The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to high-income individuals than to low income people who lack the ability to place the maximum permitted amount in their savings accounts
Well, I'm your basic weirdo Libertarian, so to my mind, the less federal involvement the better.
I know this is an odd stance for someone like me to take, a person who is moderate to conservative on most issues. But health care has gone down the proverbial dumper since it was taken over by the HMOs and the insurance companies, and unlike most goods and services, it should not be a part of the free market.
The part about the 'dumper' comes in AFTER the government got involved. Who do you think made the laws that brought about the HMOs, in the first place?
You aren't holding true to your core beliefs. You SAY you believe that the free market normally works, and you point out why you think it doesn't work here, but the catch is that you are pointing out how the GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE hasn't work, in your advocacy for more gov't interference.
HSAs and Catastrophic Insurance. Get the gov't out. Let them, if they wish, pick up the tab for those that can't afford it on their own. It would be much cheaper to pick up the back end if the gov't got out of the front end, first.
You're right, the current system doesn't work. BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. The solution then, is less of what doesn't work. That would mean less government.
So aren't the state and local yahoos corrupt too? What would you suggest, a revolution? Anarchy?
I wouldn't suggest revolution, just a return to the Federal model of our Constitution. State and locals are more responsive because they are more local. THE MORE LOCAL you make the implementation of a program, the more responsive it must be. It is the difference between depending upon 25,000 votes to win election and 2 million.
Those 25,000 votes matter oh so much more.
This is why progressives hate the concept of anything short of Federal control. They know that Washington isn't responsive to the people. They count on it.
Progressives are very afraid of having their ideas held accountable to the people. This was directly said in the recent thread about poverty being bad for your health. Somebody directly said that it must be federal because they didn't TRUST the people to make the right decisions. Exactly.
The idea of remoteness to Washington is designed to get 'we the people' as far out of the process as possible. After all, we're all a bunch of idiots. If we weren't, we wouldn't need Washington watching over us, in the first place. Right?
Honestly Timothy is there anything about this country you DO like?
Are you kidding? I love my country greatly. What a great idea! Our Constitutional form of government made us the World's Best and the most envied.
I don't define my nation by its government. We are the great nation we are because we made our government small. To the extent we still are a great nation, it is not because of your Congressman. No. It's because of the little guy struggling and living IN SPITE of the squeeze being placed on him by Washington.
I love my country. Government is the problem. A free people have always been the solution.
You asked the wrong question. Is there anything about the government I like? No, not much. Why not? Because I love my country. I stand in good historical company.
That is pretty much exactly what PNHP has proposed. Run it at the state level. Fund it federally administer it on the state level....
If you fund it Federally, then it is administered Federally.
It's that simple. Ask any State legislator what kinds of strings are attached when Uncle Daddy pays.
You disagree? Then answer a simple question: If not to exercise control, then what is the advantage of the funding being Federal? The States don't know how to collect money?
Simplepleasures
1,355 Posts