I want a real discussion in regards to the Health Care convo.
If you want a single payer system tell me these things:
1 - How it will work
2 - How it will be paid for
3 - Who is covered
4 - How I get to keep my private insurance
What I do not want to hear is about how other countries have it so good - they dont, thats why those that can afford it, come here. Dont tough Massachusetts great system - its not, they are broke and kicking people off it as we speak. Dont tell me that it works perfectly everywhere else - if so , go live there - we are talking about how it would work here, in THE USA.
Also, do not just harp about the evil Pharma companies, evil insurance companies or evil right wing people or what have you.... No name calling - I want to hear how it would work.
I also want to know why you have such faith in our Government to do THIS right when it doesnt do Medicare/Medicaid or the health care for the VA well AT ALL....why would this be different.
Dont tell me something needs to be done and this is the only choice - tell me how it will work. I have written 2 articles listing ideas on HOW TO SOLVE THIS and those that dissent just tell me that something needs to be done, but NOT HOW....
I wrote on this issue twice - put my ideas out there to be shot down....if this single payer system is so great, put the REAL HOW TO's out there to be discussed....
TELL ME HOW IT WILL WORK....Now - GO!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
21 comments:
All I hear is ...... crickets......
The overwhelming majority of folks in favor of this crah-pola have no idea how it would work: They just keep bleating over and over about "Fairness" and "Rights"....
The bottom line is that there is a limited supply of Health Care resources. Right now it gets rationed by the free market and one's ability to pay for insurance.... the Socialists want it rationed by some gubmint apparatchik..... that way, Professional Voters would have the same Doctor as everybody else (except for the Professional VOTED).
It does exist here. It's called the "VA". It's the only government run medical program. And if you can find me one vet who loves the VA and the nightmare navigating it is, I'll be impressed. A family friend of ours is a Vietnam Vet and had a massive hernia (as in, visible under a shirt). VA kept pushing it off and ignoring it. Finally we drove him to the private hospital where, once they found out they could bill Medicare, put him into pre-op immediately and took care of it.
I'm generally quite left of center, but this healthcare plan is a debacle on such an monstrous scale that it makes the Titanic look like a toy boat in a toddler's bathtub.
Riddle me this? How come We the People aren't shooting this idea down because it's unconstitutional along with shooting it down because the .gov can't make it work?
We giving credit to the .gov by using the argument "that they can't get it right" because they and their liberal friends can assume if they think they can get it right we'll be happy with it.
I like your idea about letting the states deal with this issue because that is the constitutional thing to do. Anything that congress or the president gives us is simply them overstepping their bounds.
EVERYDAY PREPPER IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT....
This will be my 1st argument from now on...THEN we will move to how EACH STATE can do what they want....
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ME BACK STRAIGHT! I got sucked into the WRONG argument!
I didn't mean to single you out, sorry if it came off that way. You're not the only one who has pointed out (and it's a valid point) that this is a bad idea because the .gov can't get it right and forgotten to mention that it's unconstitutional to begin with.
We allowed politicians to take our focus off the constitutionality of "gun control" also and we see how well that has worked out for us.
Well, I can't tell you how it would work...I can tell you several reasons why it won't work...but of course my opinion would be biased anyway. My problem with universal health care is that it's by Force...Sure they might not force you to see a doctor, but they force you to pay for everyone else to see one.
My problem with socialists is that they think it's ok to force someone to do something by proxy. They act all touchy feeling, warm and fuzzy, let's take care of everyone so no one is hurt. So my questions to them are: "what if I refuse to pay for these social programs? You'll fine me? what if I refuse to pay the fine? you'll send the cops to my house? what if I resist arrest? the cops will try to haul me to jail? what if I defend my natural right to freedom with my life? is worth innocent people getting killed over to force these social programs on others?"
I've never had a problem with the possibility of a national "anything" as long as it's optional to use and optional to pay for....I prefer fedex over USPS for overnight shipments. I prefer to rent a car than to ride AMTrak...but I don't like my tax dollars subsidizing the postal service, or even a failed rail system....The same holds true for health care, if they want a national program, fine, but not on my dime.
American Preppers Network
My question is would we even be having this dialogue if the Unsurance companies would 1) allow portability- from being covered by a company to some sort of pool on a regional or even state level? 2) If there was no pre-existing clause would this be an issue? 3) Pleople are always screaming about losong their freedom to choose your doc, HELLOOO! You are already being throttled in your choice of MD already. As a HCP,there are some docs in groups I would never want to touch me.4) I have seen the nightmare of denial of coverage by a person in a booth miles away, of people going bankrupt,in both funds and marriages.This issue is not a "socialist"being rammed down our throats. I believe that the rich will always have the ability to get what they want,flashing those bucks, we should not have to go thru the nightmare of losing all we have worked hard for if we have a catastrophic illness,for the rest of us. We have always required the people standing up and voicing their desires to get anything done, we just do't need the head-bashing and screaming to get our points across, it should be "civil" disobedience. That is how Gandhi, King and others got the change they desired.
I think dee has something with the 2nd question. When I was self-employed for a few years we didn't have insurance on my wife because of some pre-existing conditions. Affordability wasn't really the issue at all so much as wasting my money knowing they wouldn't pay out anyway because of her "pre-existing" conditions.
If they want a reform then putting a limit on the pre-existing conditions would help more people I think. However even regulating that is unconstitutional.
Prepper:
Explain to me your view on what is constitutional? Cannot we not mandate speed limits, driving ages,ages to enlist, smoke, etc. Why not getting decent coverage regardless of cancer, diabetes, etc? I fall in the cancer group, can afford to improve my insurance but can't for at least another 3 years, if i 'm lucky, and I am sure you shopped around just like I did. We are a self-employed business also. You just wait for the other shoe to fall.
You are the smartest person I know. (Please, don't tell the other BSers. Thank you.)
My view of constitutional may be more narrow than others but I believe if the power is not directly given to the Federal government by either the original constitution or by a ratified amendment to it then the fed .gov has no right legislating it.
It's my belief that all other matters and legislation should fall upon the states to decide upon for themselves. If this pattern were followed (as I believe was the intent of the founding fathers) then each state would directly reflect the culture and beliefs of that state and if you no longer liked the way your state was doing something you could move to another state that was more to your liking.
As it stands now all states are being lumped together into one pot and unless you are extremely liberal or extremely pleased with government controlling everything (not to be confused as the same thing) then it's very hard to make that pot fit everything.
The problem we currently face is one of numbers. There are to many people for us to possibly agree on all these issues. I believe the founders understood this and that's why they allowed the states to retain so much power when the union was formed.
As to your current situation, I'm sorry to hear you can't find adequate coverage for an affordable price. I have never went through your situation so there is no way I can begin to understand the emotional roller-coaster you and your family have gone through. My experience with my wife can't even be used because each trial is different and each person is different. We sought help from God and from our church family and I would always suggest that to anyone going through something. I'm not here to preach but that is what we did and we have made it through. Again our experience isn't your experience and we are not your family so what you do and what we do may be differnt.
To address your list of things legislated here are my answers:
1. Mandate speed limits (fed .gov allows the state to control this as far as I know and that's the way it should be)
2. Driving ages (again state level as it should be)
3. Ages to enlist (Federal but that's ok in my books since the fed .gov is enlisting for it's military. As for the national guard I think it should be a state choice)
4. Smoke (I don't smoke but I don't think any .gov should be able to stop a person from smoking whether it's by direct legislation or by taxing it so much it can't be afforded.
5. Healthcare (again I think this should be a state decision. If your state choose to offer a plan to it's citizens then more power to them. It would be coming from your pocketbook not mine.)
I hope that very lengthy reply answered your question :)
Sorry to Pearls, I hope I haven't hijacked your post to much :)
Everyday - absolutely NOT - this is exactly what I wanted....
Although, if I were you, I would copy and paste your comments as the workings of a post for your site ;)
Dont let your brilliance go to waste on the comments section!
Dusty - I LOVE YOU :)
Bravo, Prepper!
I agree with your posit.I just beleieve there are issues that since the states are not able to deal with in a way that does not break their budget the fed must step in. The big healthcare co. made approx $2.4 to 247 bil between 2000-2007. (SEC filings) While the uninsured rose from 34mil to 47 mil (US census bureau) during the same period. I was listening to NPR a bout two weeks ago and did a spot on volunteer HCP serving uninsured at a converted fair ground. They go all over the country doing this. People stood in line for acouple of days to get a number to be seen They interviewed a formerly well-to-do employer who lost his business due to health issues and he had brought his entire family because they could not afford preentative, much less acute care. He was grateful. This in the greatess country in the world. We need reform. I believe it IS a right to have adequate healthcare. Don't feel sorry for me, I had an extra catastrophic illness policy that helped pay the $3500 or so of OOP expenses. I am stuck in what we have. But not everyone has the foresight or luck in such instances. I pay $248/mos for arimidex out of our pocket because e don't have drug coverage and that's wholesale. See Matthew 25:40 what the Savior says about we should treat one another. As a follower of Christ, should I do anything different? There is nothing wrong with profit, but compassion has to be there too. We will have sufficient for our needs and much more, if we treat each other righteously
PS: Please forgive my spelling errors, I really am not that ignorant, just expressing my thoughts, forgive the format.
If the federal government would just step up and say "our bad we shouldn't be in this field" don't you think states would step up since this is getting so much press lately?
Honestly I'm not sure they would step up because of the budget issues so many are having right now but then again if we cut the unconstitutional agencies, taxes and policies of the fed .gov then the taxes would dramatically decrease and state .gov taxes could go up a little so individual states could afford to have this stuff.
I'm not saying the state .gov's have the right ideas at all but they are more accountable to their citizens then the fed .gov folks.
I agree something needs to happen but just because the fed .gov thinks they can do it doesn't mean they should do it or that we should allow them to do it. Dr. Ian Malcolm (from Jurassic Park) said "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." and I think the .gov is suffering from the same problem.
The freedoms we all hold so dear were purchased with the sweat and blood of our fore fathers. Wives were left without husbands, children without fathers, parents out lived there sons and an entire generation of people sacrificed everything so we could live in the greatest country in the world. Are we so ready to sell that freedom for a little security? I personally am not. Their sacrifices encourage me, up lift me and make my complaints look so very small. No, I'm not ready to trade all that they worked for so that I can obtain security, ease of life or healthcare coverage. I believe their sacrifice is, and should be, more important and more enduring than that.
The easy thing to do is to go with the quick fix, the right thing to do is work within the bounds that our constitution allows even if that means some "slip through the cracks". Is it easy to say that? No. Is it easy to think that there are families that are suffering when all they need is medicine that is being given out freely in other countries? No. I can't imagine what I would do if my son were sick, I couldn't afford medicine, I had no where to turn and I was watching him die day by day knowing that all that was need was medicine. I'm sorry for the families in that situation or any situation where they can't get coverage but I won't trade the sacrifice of my fore fathers for this. I firmly believe the church is here to help people like this whether they believe in God or not. I believe it's our duty and a way for us to show God's true glory here on earth.
Yes, I believe something must be done, but I believe until a constitutional solutions is found I will support no legislation no matter how good it sounds because it isn't worth the sacrifice that was paid.
I am still not hearing HOW the Government can/could/would run this program.
I have heard a lot of the Govt SHOULD do something....but not any details.
I will be posting another article in response to a lot of this but one thing really quick - the 47 million thing as reported by the census is misleading. That includes anyone who did not have insurance for even 1 day in 2007 as well as over 10 million illegals, 14 million who are eligible for Govt programs now but have not enrolled and almost 10 million people who make over $75,000 a year.
Therefore, you are down to 13 million people who did not have health insurance for at least 1 day in 2007. The problem becomes MUCH easier to take on as states.
This information came from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/21/five-myths-of-health-care/
Therefore, I contend that just offering TAX BENEFITS to doctors who provide their services - let them write off their time - you could almost take care of all these people.
Opening the markets, inducing lower prescription costs with tax incentives....and other stuff I will get to in another article...will cover those 13 million...
"How I get to keep my private insurance?"
The answer is that if you are allowed to have private insurance then you will have to pay BIG bucks. The company or government entity that you work for will drop your coverage and most private insurance companies will be out of business. The ones that survive will charge lots of money (figure 2x what you and your company together pay now for a start) and most of their clients will be very highly paid people like professional athletes (who have to be in top shape to perform), pop musicians (Michael Jackson would be able to afford it if he were still alive), entertainers (Opra Winfrey for one), top authors (Steven King), and probably the most successful personal injury lawyers.
You might be ALLOWED to have private insurance the same way you are ALLOWED to own your own personal Gulfstream jet or 100 foot yacht.
The people pushing this from the top aren't particularly worried about you and your families health. You are just one of the little people in flyover country.
Good point Pearls, about true count of unemployed if that is the case. The point being, a way to provide affordable access to insurance across the board should be a goal.
I think regional pools could be established, much like medicare is managed. There are regions (I am in C). I submit billing to them and the govt transmits payment for the claims after receiving the info from the regional carrier. The providers bid on performing the service and is selected by their bid and ability to provide reliable efficient service. I am not saying the govt has to be the decider. It can be done by a local entity, but if you really think about it, there is going to have to be national rules so the pooled entities don't just make up stuff that could not be portable across regions. We are a mobile society, frequently moving to a new job setting. The horror would be no coverage in region A because of a quirk in the law. Right now medicare advantage plans are performed by private insurance agencies, that are a pain to bill for because they each have different criteria to be one of their providers of care. I believe these agencies should meet and set themselves, requirements that a provider can utilize. For instance it is common practice to bill using HCFA 1500 forms that Medicare started years ago. It is the form physician services, hospitals, lab services etc, utilize. This agencies are not govt run, they use this form as a standard across the board now. I was watchung a town hall back in April on the need for healthcare reform, that was excellently presented by dem/rep, and if I remember correctly, they said medicare is run efficiently with the least dollars spent on the management side of it.Competition is a good thing, and you can't operate without standards of care that all bodies adopt.
Question from Everyday Prepper: "How come We the People aren't shooting this idea down because it's unconstitutional along with shooting it down because the .gov can't make it work?"
Most people these days don't know what the Constitution is. If you bring it up they look at you like an asparagus just grew out of your ear. We are insulated here in that most of the people who post here believe the Constitution is a document that defines what the federal government is supposed to do and that the same government is prohibited from doing anything else. Not so in the general population.
Sorry Pearls I never did actually get to any solutions did I. I think most people refrain from offering solutions because they are afraid to look bad. I'm know I fall into that category often unfortunately.
Some of my ideas might be considered out there but hey they are ideas and they are at least a jumping point for other ideas.
How about cutting some of the regulations on who can practice and prescribe medicine. I know, and many others know enough to be able to diagnosis colds, sinus infections, strep throat, stomach bugs and some other minor things that go around and if I could at least self medicate I could probably save my family a majority of my and my sons bills.
I'm not sure how well this would work for everyone because some would of course abuse it but any freedom we gain could come with criminal charges if you abuse it, just like if you abuse alcohol and do something stupid.
I'm not sure about allowing this to be broadened to allowing people to diagnose other people outside of their family but I can see a good argument for opening it up in this way.
Some will say "but what about malpractice and such" well I'm all for allowing you choice but you must live with that choice and if you sign a waiver of liability then I'm sorry he cut off the wrong arm but you're out of luck. This kind of thing would make you look long and hard at who was providing your medical care.
I think for minor stuff you would go to someone you know that could probably tell you what it was and if that didn't work or if it were more serious then you could go to someone with more substantial training.
This doesn't provide insurance or anything but it might drive down the prices because there would be more folks diagnosing everyday stuff. I know I and many others like me that would be more than happy to see 4 patients an hour at 20 dollars a pop for 8 hours a day. :)
Well there is my first idea. I doubt anyone will listen but it's out there just in case...
Wow, have I learned a lot by reading these comments. Funny thing is I just came by to take a look at pics of Jen's house. ha ha! And now I know what DT thinks about you being the smartest. I will concur, but again, say nothing to the BSers. I will deny everything.
This comment will self-destruct.
Post a Comment