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.
How is setting a national standard different than denying the States the right to set their own standards?
More to the point, how is this NOT Federal Control? Your plans depend upon Federal funding in order to maintain Federal control. That's fine, but let's not pretend the States would exercise control of the programs. He who pays, decides.
If you don't think the various States will meet 'minimum standards' without Federal control, then what you are saying is that you don't trust the States to do so. It's implicit in the argument.
~faith,
Timothy.
No matter where it is not possible to provide safe nursing care to an unstable patient requiring CRRT and IABP and one or more other patients.
Texas, Alaska, or Rhode Island people deserve the same high standard of safe, effective, therapeutic, compassionate nursing care.
Everyone understands that "free market" is a theoretical concept, right? Markets are always controlled by forces outside of the market itself. Whether that force is Grogg, the guy with the biggest club, or federal subsidies, no "free market" has ever or can ever exist.
Health care is currently very heavily regulated. The laws and regulations are so complex that we have little control. A single payer system would only decrease that complexity and, as stated in earlier posts, be more transparent.
Everyone understands that "free market" is a theoretical concept, right? Markets are always controlled by forces outside of the market itself. Whether that force is Grogg, the guy with the biggest club, or federal subsidies, no "free market" has ever or can ever exist.
Health care is currently very heavily regulated. The laws and regulations are so complex that we have little control. A single payer system would only decrease that complexity and, as stated in earlier posts, be more transparent.
This argument is nonsensical. You state that the health care market is currently heavily regulated by government (that is the source of the current problems with health care), but yet, if we turn over ALL control to government, the system would become LESS complicated, that we would gain more control.
No.
It would become FULLY regulated and, as a result MORE complicated and no individual control.
I agree with your premise that the free market is 'theoretical' in that there will ALWAYS be some regulation. I'm not proposing NO regulation. Even the wildly successful OTC market has SOME regulation. As a general rule, however, the LESS regulation, the more free the market. The more free the market, the more freedom Americans have to choose. The more free the market, the more free the ability to provide - AND RECEIVE - the best combination of pricing and quality.
The market can only charge what the market will bear. It charges TONS now because YOU DON'T PAY. You aren't the customer. THAT is what is transparent in the current market. TOTAL GOV'T CONTROL will only make that more the case.
"his argument is nonsensical. You state that the health care market is currently heavily regulated by government (that is the source of the current problems with health care), but yet, if we turn over ALL control to government, the system would become LESS regulated."
No, I said it is already controlled by the government. Putting it all in one location would make that control more transparent.
"his argument is nonsensical. You state that the health care market is currently heavily regulated by government (that is the source of the current problems with health care), but yet, if we turn over ALL control to government, the system would become LESS regulated."
No, I said it is already controlled by the government. Putting it all in one location would make that control more transparent.
You identify the problem, overbearing control, and pronounce the solution: more of the same.
Again, I don't see how your solution follows your diagnosis.
Even if it did, I find it repugnant to, in effect, say that IF the gov't screws up a vital component of your life, the best solution would be to reward the gov't for its efforts. Make no mistake, this is about reward. It's about Congress' ability to have total viability in selling your health care to the highest lobbying bidder. The only way to exclude you from the process is to, well, exclude you from the process.
You like the idea of UHC? Think Haliburton, in charge of your health care.
How is setting a national standard different than denying the States the right to set their own standards?
More to the point, how is this NOT Federal Control? Your plans depend upon Federal funding in order to maintain Federal control. That's fine, but let's not pretend the States would exercise control of the programs. He who pays, decides.
If you don't think the various States will meet 'minimum standards' without Federal control, then what you are saying is that you don't trust the States to do so. It's implicit in the argument.
~faith,
Timothy.
My posts very clearly stated that any plan would be contolled by the states but also have federal funding streams for the very practical purpose of assuring stability of funding.
(States IOW would be free to charge copays etc. and administer their programs but not deviate below a certain standard of care.)
I can think of a basic standard of coverage that would be included because they are good practices:
Annual physical
Immunizations covered 100%
Annual Dental Exam and 2 cleanings
Annual eye exam
Cover chronic illness care and medications at 100% with no out of pocket costs.
Medications reimbursed according to evidence based standards.
Contraceptive equity
Mental Health equity
The emphasis of any plan should be towards prevention.
I want to be able to say "I respectfully agree to disagree." I sincerely, would like to read viable arguments from those opposed. I have read every post and followed every link. I dismiss ad hominem and straw man arguments without review.
I choose to not believe that those opposed are irrational or naive.
I am not able to honestly say "I respectfully agree to disagree,'"on this issue. I can say that for other issues such as hand gun control, euthanasia, death penalty, abortion, ad nauseum. In fact, I can successfully debate the opposite opinion on all those issues. My wishes are not important, but if anyone opposed has the desire, I will pay attention.
Well, over 60% of our hospital's clientele are Medicare or Medicaid. I'd say we oughta just admit that a lot of our nation is uninsured and then, oh, I don't know, take care of them. Like they were worthwhile human beings or sumthin'.
My posts very clearly stated that any plan would be contolled by the states but also have federal funding streams for the very practical purpose of assuring stability of funding.
And your posts also very clearly say that you feel the purpose of federal funding is to 'ensure minimum standards' i.e. Federal Control. Are you NOW saying that there should be no federal standards, the States are free to design their programs without any restrictions from Washington?
States are fully capable of ensuring their 'funding streams'. I can show you my tax receipts if you doubt that. That is not a rationale for federal funding. Control is. He who pays, decides. I'm not trying to be nitpicky but this is an essential concept.
You want to sell me on State controlled programs? Sold. My State legislators are very accessible and I will have a real say in the design of such a program. Federal control? Nope. Washington is out of touch with the citizenry. Plus, they have no Constitutional authority for such a program. IF we are going to say the States control their own programs, however, then they must control it. They must control the funding. Otherwise, saying the States control the programs is empty semantics.
Well, over 60% of our hospital's clientele are Medicare or Medicaid. I'd say we oughta just admit that a lot of our nation is uninsured and then, oh, I don't know, take care of them. Like they were worthwhile human beings or sumthin'.
I disagree with gov't controlled healthcare because I think Americans should be treated like worthwhile human beings, or something. I disagree that a fair share in a dismal outcome is the equivalent of being treated human.
Let's clarify here: you talk as if my viewpoint were cruel and heartless, as if you hold the moral high ground. Your last statement typifies that. Well, YOU want to treat people like human beings (as opposed to me). I do not cede the moral high ground. I also want what is best, for everyone. I don't believe that gov't controlled mediocrity is what is best. The free market (as least regulated as possible) brings to the table the BEST combination of quality and price.
Anything LESS than the best mix of quality and price is less than fair to everyone involved. Government is MUCH LESS than the best mix of quality and price; it is the antithesis of it.
IN fact, government involvement has made health care SO expensive, 47 million people can't afford it. Neither can most of you, unless it's subsidized by the government through your employer. That's on purpose. The government (and its lobbyists) has plans for your health care dollars, and they don't include YOUR opinions.
My daughter was flown by fixed wing transport from Houston to our local medical center. At the time, all she needed was supplemental oxygen for a 65 mile trip.
Ground transport, at $1,000 cost, would have been fine.
Fixed wing transport was $12,000.
I requested ground transport. The transport coordinator absolutely refused. It was more 'suitable' to take the air plane ride. Besides, why did I care; I'm not paying for it?
That's what he said, over and over: I'm not paying for it, why should I care? It was made very clear that the primary reason to take the fixed wing was that they could charge more, and THAT should be none of my business.
I was ultimately told, air travel or no travel: pick. We flew.
So, my insurance company was charged $12,000 when $1,000 would have been more than adequate (and by making two transfers - to and from the fixed wing - the time benefit for air transport was less than 1/2 hr.)
Do you know why I couldn't make my case: I had no power. I had no power because I couldn't say the magic words: "I won't pay that much."
Of course I will, or rather, my insurance company will. After all, I'm NOT they customer; they are.
THAT is what is wrong with health care financing. Government control doesn't solve that problem of choice; it just transfers my choice to yet someone else.
my daughter was flown by fixed wing transport from houston to our local medical center. at the time, all she needed was supplemental oxygen for a 65 mile trip.
ground transport, at $1,000 cost, would have been fine.
fixed wing transport was $12,000.
i requested ground transport. the transport coordinator absolutely refused. it was more 'suitable' to take the air plane ride. besides, why did i care; i'm not paying for it?
that's what he said, over and over: i'm not paying for it, why should i care? it was made very clear that the primary reason to take the fixed wing was that they could charge more, and that should be none of my business.so was this person who told you, that you must fly a government person, or was it an employee of the hospital?
i was ultimately told, air travel or no travel: pick. we flew.
so, my insurance company was charged $12,000 when $1,000 would have been more than adequate (and by making two transfers - to and from the fixed wing - the time benefit for air transport was less than 1/2 hr.)
do you know why i couldn't make my case: i had no power.who took away that power? was it a government entity? or was it he hospital? i had no power because i couldn't say the magic words: "i won't pay that much." was the hospital a private entity?no connection to the government.
of course i will, or rather, my insurance company will. after all, i'm not they customer; they are.
that is what is wrong with health care financing. government control doesn't solve that problem of choice; it just transfers my choice to yet someone else.there needs to be government control of what the hospitals charge. case in point.
freedom to choose is fundamentally humane.
~faith,
timothy.
the federal monster had nothing to do with what your hospital charged you, that is precisely why we need federal guidelines for these hospitals and clinics, they are getting away with gouging the public.
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
No matter where it is not possible to provide safe nursing care to an unstable patient requiring CRRT and IABP and one or more other patients.
Texas, Alaska, or Rhode Island people deserve the same high standard of safe, effective, therapeutic, compassionate nursing care.