Topic: Health Care in England Question

[Cvillechopper]

Insurance coverage is an aside.  I mentioned that the system would be most effective if there were no insurance companies to confuse the discussion.  Get rid of them.  Everyone is responsible for their own expenses, period (aside from charitable donations).  

In other words a return to health care Dickens-style. If you cant afford it then off to the poor house with you...great idea  

I am sorry but your ideas and arguments so far do not have much basis in reality or fact. This mornings "discussion" has shown that. You seem to make health insurance a "bean-counting" exercise where you can input the data into your model and whatever it spits out you will accept as "this is what the model says". You talk of acceptable losses and people dying but what you are failing to grasp is the human connection. I understand you have commented on this "human issue" already but...your comments are not based in reality. You do need to consider the human nature of health care, period. For both political and moral grounds as a country. 

And once again how do your ideas differ from Nazi-social policies? You failed to answer that.

I could retort that you must eliminate the human nature of healthcare, "period".  That doesn't make me anymore correct than your statement.  The best solution lies somewhere in the middle.  A compromise.  Something that many are unwilling to do around this issue.  I am arguing the opposing view to try and open your eyes to the fact that there are alternative options.

Also, dismissing my arguments as having no basis in reality or fact is not only incorrect but illustrates the underlying ignorance of a nation and it's unwillingness to at least try to see a different point of view instead of simply throwing a tantrum.  You don't have to accept it, but at least try to see the argument out to the end.  There is plenty of fact in my argument that you refuse to acknowledge.

[paulages]

So much for preventive care, huh masonryman.
Guess that doesn't figure in their profit margins too well, too short term thinking on their parts.

Long term they'll save money but good luck getting the insurance company to see the long view.
 

I've said it before but will reiterate that information and its dissemination into consumers hands is paramount to and industry in a capitalist society working well.  Assuming that more information is available, there will be better use of the information.  
If there is more personal accountability, preventative care becomes more of a priority.  All else being equal, if an individual knows that regular check-ups are shown to reduces the severity of illness down the road, an intelligent and responsible approach would be to prioritize that check-up high on the list of to-dos.

Insurance coverage is an aside.  I mentioned that the system would be most effective if there were no insurance companies to confuse the discussion.  Get rid of them.  Everyone is responsible for their own expenses, period (aside from charitable donations).  The overall cost to the provider was just reduced by a very large % and that savings would have to be passed to the end consumer or the consumers would not buy the service (very bad outcomes for everyone).  You end up with a system that has much more individual choice and responsibility, much less bureaucratic waste, and is sustainable.

cville- i get that you must be an ayn rand fan. i think she was brilliant, but like carl marx, mikhail bakunin and other brilliant idealogues, her theories rely ultimately on a belief that humans can rise above the lowest common denominator. i can't argue against the raw concepts of personal responsibility, etc. from an ideological viewpoint, but I just can't believe that the majority of society are remotely capable of such a thing, and i think a mad max type scenario would more likely be the result. have you seen greenspan's confused apology after financial deregulation "didn't work?" he was arguably rand's most powerful follower. i respect your conviction, i just disagree with the outcome of your ideology.

since insurance is essentially organized gambling, i'll posit that it's simply a safer bet to make sure everyone in society isn't destitute and dying. i detest government control and "big government," but i'd rather not have to start carrying an AR-15 with me to work, just yet. realistically, most of this discussion isn't about reason though. some people have their political positions, and will never part from what talking points are being put out by their leaders. i think it's interesting that many people like bobbyR, who are self-described conservatives are crossing party lines on this though.

just curious though: why is it conservatives weren't up in arms when two wars were raging, and were never accounted for in budget at all? for that matter, why do conservatives never seem to care about the defense budget? all that laissez-faire economics requires a strong arm?

[Cvillechopper]

So much for preventive care, huh masonryman.
Guess that doesn't figure in their profit margins too well, too short term thinking on their parts.

Long term they'll save money but good luck getting the insurance company to see the long view.
 

I've said it before but will reiterate that information and its dissemination into consumers hands is paramount to and industry in a capitalist society working well.  Assuming that more information is available, there will be better use of the information.  
If there is more personal accountability, preventative care becomes more of a priority.  All else being equal, if an individual knows that regular check-ups are shown to reduces the severity of illness down the road, an intelligent and responsible approach would be to prioritize that check-up high on the list of to-dos.

Insurance coverage is an aside.  I mentioned that the system would be most effective if there were no insurance companies to confuse the discussion.  Get rid of them.  Everyone is responsible for their own expenses, period (aside from charitable donations).  The overall cost to the provider was just reduced by a very large % and that savings would have to be passed to the end consumer or the consumers would not buy the service (very bad outcomes for everyone).  You end up with a system that has much more individual choice and responsibility, much less bureaucratic waste, and is sustainable.

cville- i get that you must be an ayn rand fan. i think she was brilliant, but like carl marx, mikhail bakunin and other brilliant idealogues, her theories rely ultimately on a belief that humans can rise above the lowest common denominator. i can't argue against the raw concepts of personal responsibility, etc. from an ideological viewpoint, but I just can't believe that the majority of society are remotely capable of such a thing, and i think a mad max type scenario would more likely be the result. have you seen greenspan's confused apology after financial deregulation "didn't work?" he was arguably rand's most powerful follower. i respect your conviction, i just disagree with the outcome of your ideology.

since insurance is essentially organized gambling, i'll posit that it's simply a safer bet to make sure everyone in society isn't destitute and dying. i detest government control and "big government," but i'd rather not have to start carrying an AR-15 with me to work, just yet. realistically, most of this discussion isn't about reason though. some people have their political positions, and will never part from what talking points are being put out by their leaders. i think it's interesting that many people like bobbyR, who are self-described conservatives are crossing party lines on this though.

just curious though: why is it conservatives weren't up in arms when two wars were raging, and were never accounted for in budget at all? for that matter, why do conservatives never seem to care about the defense budget? all that laissez-faire economics requires a strong arm?

great observations.  I used to call myself a Roarkian instead of Libertarian.  I am not a republican due to the over-involvement in personal social issues and am not a democrat due to, what I see as, the irresponsible fiscal policies and removal of self reliance.  True, ideology must be tempered with practicality but I'd like to see us, as a society, at least try to rise above the common denominator or let those that can't keep up fall a few times instead of limping them along at the cost of the rest of the group.  Not social Darwinism but a close cousin.

Also, I wrote my congressmen and women in protest of the war and called for the indictment of that administration for the misinformation fed to the public (and congress) and agree that defense spending is out of control and corrupted.  Uh oh, I may have lost my one ally in this discussion

[Inigo Montoya]

I'll attach this again as it does help to illustrate how the provider's costs are driven by things that most do not understand.  It might help answer your last statement.

Personal choice:  You could choose what procedures, through discussion with your doctor and an understanding of the costs, you would like to purchase.  Today many of the procedures that are performed are unnecessary but are done anyway so a dr can cover his ass due to the overly litigious nature of this society.  If you take the responsibility of paying for a procedure you would be more likely to spend time learning about that procedure, talking with your doctor about the pros and cons, and make a choice based on your situation.  

45,000 because they do not have insurance, not because they could not afford insurance.  There is no indication as to what percent of this group is deemed to not be able to afford insurance, just that they don't have it.  I have read several studies (sorry, I don't have them in front of me right now but will try to find them to reference) that indicate as much as 40% (usually closer to 30%) of the uninsured # quoted repeatedly through this debate make at or above the average US income.  These are people that choose to not have insurance.

How many would it take, probably 2 to 3 % from my point of view but at least 1% would be nice.  Even 1/10th of a percent would be reasonable.  We're wasting time talking about a fraction of that even.

You mean personal choice as is, whether or not a person can afford that mri or catscan, or an ekg. Another fun tidbit, not all hospitals have the same equipment. What that means is you to the hospital that is close by and sorry while you think they should, the average person is not going to know the difference between mri beds. They cant say "oh that is an old model and does not scan as good. You should really use this model". So your idea is blown already by the simple fact that not all hospitals offer the same level or quality of care. They also do not have the same quality of doctors. Your system also makes it even more expensive if a person decides a second opinion is needed as they may have to pay for everything a second time. After all, you go to 2 visits and you pay for both, not one. That method would fail from the start, unless of course your idea is to trim down population quickly.  You also for got about the people that are born with weaker immune systems. They WILL be sick more and that will cost them more but because they are sick more, they can't work as much and so less money to pay for that treatment.

As for the number of people, I suppose any system is always going to have cracks but just outright dismissing people such as you do is plain barbaric.

[edbikerii]

Agreed, where's the compromise?  The radicals are dead set with religious zeal to socialize the system at any cost.  Why?  Why have they ignored alternative proposals that might fix the existing system incrementally?

Why does the only solution for them involve government takeover?

They have no regard for the 300 Million Americans who are satisfied with the system.

The fact is that though there are some relatively minor problems, there is no way the government will ever make it better after a takeover.

We've all see government takeover healthcare before.  Medicaid, Medicare, VA Hospitals are run like crap under government control.  They cost more and provide lower levels of service than private insurance.  In fact, most people on Medicare also pay out of pocket for MediGap insurance to cover the short-comings.  Most VETS have their own private insurance that they pay for through their employers because VA care is so poor.  We've seen that NHS has rampant rationing.  We've seen that one must wait potentially months for simple tests like CTs in Canada.

Insurance coverage is an aside.  I mentioned that the system would be most effective if there were no insurance companies to confuse the discussion.  Get rid of them.  Everyone is responsible for their own expenses, period (aside from charitable donations).  

In other words a return to health care Dickens-style. If you cant afford it then off to the poor house with you...great idea  

I am sorry but your ideas and arguments so far do not have much basis in reality or fact. This mornings "discussion" has shown that. You seem to make health insurance a "bean-counting" exercise where you can input the data into your model and whatever it spits out you will accept as "this is what the model says". You talk of acceptable losses and people dying but what you are failing to grasp is the human connection. I understand you have commented on this "human issue" already but...your comments are not based in reality. You do need to consider the human nature of health care, period. For both political and moral grounds as a country. 

And once again how do your ideas differ from Nazi-social policies? You failed to answer that.

I could retort that you must eliminate the human nature of healthcare, "period".  That doesn't make me anymore correct than your statement.  The best solution lies somewhere in the middle.  A compromise.  Something that many are unwilling to do around this issue.  I am arguing the opposing view to try and open your eyes to the fact that there are alternative options.

Also, dismissing my arguments as having no basis in reality or fact is not only incorrect but illustrates the underlying ignorance of a nation and it's unwillingness to at least try to see a different point of view instead of simply throwing a tantrum.  You don't have to accept it, but at least try to see the argument out to the end.  There is plenty of fact in my argument that you refuse to acknowledge.

[edbikerii]

This is a discussion about health care, our personal freedom, and socialism->communism->fascism.  Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the constant attempts at re-direction.

Sorry, but the war in Iraq or Afganistan or whereever we happen to be at war today is not relevant here.

I reject the notion that Paul seems to adhere to that the American people are too stupid to make their own decisions.  I believe that the American people have the RIGHT to make their own decisions.

Also, I wrote my congressmen and women in protest of the war and called for the indictment of that administration for the misinformation fed to the public (and congress) and agree that defense spending is out of control and corrupted.  Uh oh, I may have lost my one ally in this discussion

[paulages]

...as if writing or calling a politician does anything.   that's the humor in this whole discussion, really. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, because none of us have the power to change anything anyway. this is more of a demonstration of people's true colors. the difference i see between you and "your ally's" argument is that you seem to be thinking more independently, whereas his points seem letter for letter from the whacko-right (fascist) talking points. i listen to beck, hannity, and limbaugh for free... i sure don't need reiterations of their insanity here.

[paulages]

This is a discussion about health care, our personal freedom, and socialism->communism->fascism.  Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the constant attempts at re-direction.

Sorry, but the war in Iraq or Afganistan or whereever we happen to be at war today is not relevant here.

I reject the notion that Paul seems to adhere to that the American people are too stupid to make their own decisions.  I believe that the American people have the RIGHT to make their own decisions.

Also, I wrote my congressmen and women in protest of the war and called for the indictment of that administration for the misinformation fed to the public (and congress) and agree that defense spending is out of control and corrupted.  Uh oh, I may have lost my one ally in this discussion

it's not redirection to discuss the ideology that promotes your position, ed. i know you hate when others don't play by your rules, but fortunately you don't have power to control what the rest of us discuss. you love talking about the budget and how the liberals are breaking the bank... how is my point regarding the defense budget not relevant? do you wish to retract the fiscal element of this discussion?

and where did i say that americans shouldn't have the right to make their own decisions? admitting there are lots of stupid people in the world doesn't mean you don't support their right to be stupid.

[Cvillechopper]

This is a discussion about health care, our personal freedom, and socialism->communism->fascism.  Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the constant attempts at re-direction.

Sorry, but the war in Iraq or Afganistan or whereever we happen to be at war today is not relevant here.

I reject the notion that Paul seems to adhere to that the American people are too stupid to make their own decisions.  I believe that the American people have the RIGHT to make their own decisions.

Also, I wrote my congressmen and women in protest of the war and called for the indictment of that administration for the misinformation fed to the public (and congress) and agree that defense spending is out of control and corrupted.  Uh oh, I may have lost my one ally in this discussion

Just to be clear, I was not trying to redirect.  I was simply illustrating that I do not fall nicely into any category and do not believe the previous comment was indicative of that understanding.

[edbikerii]

And another attempt to re-direct.  I don't listen to any of them.  I don't have cable TV.  I don't need anybody to explain to me how stupid the idea of government taking over our health care is.

We've all seen how they've screwed it up before, both here and abroad.  Why would anyone with any sense think it could somehow magically be better if our government takes over healtcare?

Most ridiculous of all is that I'm advocating more personal freedom, and Paul calls me a fascist.  He espouses government takeover of healthcare -- the most intimate details of every one of our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's lives, and he has the nerve to try to associate free enterprise with fascism.

Please tell me I'm not the only one left in the world who can see what sneaky bull-#$%* that is.

...as if writing or calling a politician does anything.   that's the humor in this whole discussion, really. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, because none of us have the power to change anything anyway. this is more of a demonstration of people's true colors. the difference i see between you and "your ally's" argument is that you seem to be thinking more independently, whereas his points seem letter for letter from the whacko-right (fascist) talking points. i listen to beck, hannity, and limbaugh for free... i sure don't need reiterations of their insanity here.

[edbikerii]

No, Paul was trying to re-direct.

Just to be clear, I was not trying to redirect.  I was simply illustrating that I do not fall nicely into any category and do not believe the previous comment was indicative of that understanding.

[paulages]

 

This is a discussion about health care, our personal freedom, and socialism->communism->fascism.

ed, are still trying to claim that these three are the same thing? speaking of proving that ignorance has the right of speech...  

[Cvillechopper]

...as if writing or calling a politician does anything.   that's the humor in this whole discussion, really. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, because none of us have the power to change anything anyway. this is more of a demonstration of people's true colors. the difference i see between you and "your ally's" argument is that you seem to be thinking more independently, whereas his points seem letter for letter from the whacko-right (fascist) talking points. i listen to beck, hannity, and limbaugh for free... i sure don't need reiterations of their insanity here.

Thanks... I think

For the record, I don't believe the current system provides the best care we are capable of for the largest number of citizens.  There should be a tremendous reform, I just happen to think that there are other options and enjoy arguing some of the lesser examined points in the hopes that it will open the discussion further.  Given a large enough group and willingness to adjust ones own view on a given topic a truth (or compromise) can eventually be reached.  It's when people on both or multiple sides dig in and refuse to give in on any point for fear of loosing the entire discussion you come to a stalemate.

It is enjoyable though (at times).

[paulages]

And another attempt to re-direct.  I don't listen to any of them.  I don't have cable TV.  I don't need anybody to explain to me how stupid the idea of government taking over our health care is.

We've all seen how they've screwed it up before, both here and abroad.  Why would anyone with any sense think it could somehow magically be better if our government takes over healtcare?

Most ridiculous of all is that I'm advocating more personal freedom, and Paul calls me a fascist.  He espouses government takeover of healthcare -- the most intimate details of every one of our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's lives, and he has the nerve to try to associate free enterprise with fascism.

Please tell me I'm not the only one left in the world who can see what sneaky bull-#$%* that is.

...as if writing or calling a politician does anything.   that's the humor in this whole discussion, really. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, because none of us have the power to change anything anyway. this is more of a demonstration of people's true colors. the difference i see between you and "your ally's" argument is that you seem to be thinking more independently, whereas his points seem letter for letter from the whacko-right (fascist) talking points. i listen to beck, hannity, and limbaugh for free... i sure don't need reiterations of their insanity here.

ed- have you read any of the bills? not a single one of them is even close to a single-payer type system like the NHS. the most liberal of them simply calls for a government run, non profit health insurance option, which a person could choose to buy instead of private insuarance. noone's even close to talking about complete government takeover of the insurance industry.

and for the record, i'm not even attempting to endorse any of them here. i'm mostly just reading for entertainment and couldn't resist calling you on your bull#$%*. doing so doesn't make me a liberal, nor am i "calling for government takeover of healthcare" just because i see through your BS.

[Inigo Montoya]

At least we do not have silicondoc here.

[edbikerii]

Yes, alternatives and fixes are what we need.

I've proposed something here three times, and modified it to suit one individual's suggestions, yet nothing comes back.  JUST ONE RESPONSE.  All they want to do is push government takeover.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read parts of the bill.  The so-called "OPTION" is designed to bankrupt the private systems, while giving employers a tax incentive to drop their private insurance.  That has never been in the interest of increasing competition.  Sure, the system will look lovely the first year while it is going strong, but then what happens?  Same as the other three failed systems.

...as if writing or calling a politician does anything.   that's the humor in this whole discussion, really. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, because none of us have the power to change anything anyway. this is more of a demonstration of people's true colors. the difference i see between you and "your ally's" argument is that you seem to be thinking more independently, whereas his points seem letter for letter from the whacko-right (fascist) talking points. i listen to beck, hannity, and limbaugh for free... i sure don't need reiterations of their insanity here.

Thanks... I think

For the record, I don't believe the current system provides the best care we are capable of for the largest number of citizens.  There should be a tremendous reform, I just happen to think that there are other options and enjoy arguing some of the lesser examined points in the hopes that it will open the discussion further.  Given a large enough group and willingness to adjust ones own view on a given topic a truth (or compromise) can eventually be reached.  It's when people on both or multiple sides dig in and refuse to give in on any point for fear of loosing the entire discussion you come to a stalemate.

It is enjoyable though (at times).

[Inigo Montoya]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read parts of the bill.  The so-called "OPTION" is designed to bankrupt the private systems, while giving employers a tax incentive to drop their private insurance.  That has never been in the interest of increasing competition.  Sure, the system will look lovely the first year while it is going strong, but then what happens?  Same as the other three failed systems.

This would be the case unless private companies lower their rates. Tax incentives are great but I think most employers spend just as much on coverage for their employees. So if private drops rates, there is your competition. We cant force them to drop rates of course but I am sure a number of them could become more efficient which would allow rate drops easily.

[andy750]

I am arguing the opposing view to try and open your eyes to the fact that there are alternative options.

I do understand what you are trying to do. No need to spell it out. I am disagreeing with you and asking for validation and clarification which has been lacking in many of your statements.

Also, dismissing my arguments as having no basis in reality or fact is not only incorrect but illustrates the underlying ignorance of a nation and it's unwillingness to at least try to see a different point of view instead of simply throwing a tantrum.

I dont see how asking for facts is throwing a tantrum. I dont need to throw a tantrum to discuss topics with you and its hardly in my nature to do so. Please refrain from the childish comments.  I am asking for some clear logical arguments to support your position. You make vague statements such as "MANY companies have produced research innovation and medical breakthroughs" (paraphrased) and "American innovation drives the world" (again paraphrased) without giving any factual details or acknowledging the error in the latter statement - points have been bought up since then showing that you are incorrect. I hate to belabour the point but for a proponent of the Greek philosophers you are not doing a very good job of following the logical course of a discussion.  

But regardless, the topic has moved away from this mornings discussion and I am happy to let it go. Ive listened to your arguments, understand your point, disagree with it, see many factual holes in it and have presented my case.   I have had enough.

Have a good weekend 

cheers
Andy

[paulages]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read parts of the bill.  The so-called "OPTION" is designed to bankrupt the private systems, while giving employers a tax incentive to drop their private insurance.  

in what way? by providing competition the private industry can't compete with? what happened to the ol' free market invisible hand? you can't have it both ways... either it's more efficient and the private companies will be forced to compete, or it's inefficient and the companies will thrive.

i gotta go to work, boys. have fun affecting legislation on a motorcycle forum.  

[edbikerii]

Anything funded by taxpayer money does not have to meet with realistic financials, since there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY.  The "option" can initially provide unlimited services and fees and simply continue with deficit spending until the competition is gone.  Then the taxes go up, and new taxes are created, and there's nothing left to fix it.

Inigo, Insurance companies dropping their premiums doesn't solve the problem of rising healthcare costs.  Providers are very expensive, and some of the things that are covered are outrageous.  If a patient had to decide whether to spend $2000 on a CT scan from one provider or $1500 from another, which do you think he would pick?  The proposal I posted here (three times) addresses how competition will drive down those prices.  At present, the patient doesn't ever ask "why does it cost so much?", or "isn't there a cheaper way?"

These days, even the dumbest of things are covered under our health insurance plans.  My plan covers double weekly sessions of marriage counseling, with no time limit!   Sorry, but if you need it that bad, for that long, then you need to get divorced.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read parts of the bill.  The so-called "OPTION" is designed to bankrupt the private systems, while giving employers a tax incentive to drop their private insurance.  

in what way? by providing competition the private industry can't compete with? what happened to the ol' free market invisible hand? you can't have it both ways... either it's more efficient and the private companies will be forced to compete, or it's inefficient and the companies will thrive.

i gotta go to work, boys. have fun affecting legislation on a motorcycle forum.  

[Inigo Montoya]

I wont deny that providers are expensive, they certainly are. Part of it though is that you have people going in with no coverage that cant pay. Making insurance more costly or harder to get will only make it worse. The frivolous malpractice suits sure do not help either.

I would think though that if insurance were to do it right, they would support lower cost hospitals, not necessarily bad ,just lower cost, the more expensive hospitals might bring their costs in line. It would also help though if hospitals were more efficient too. My wife works for one a of the hospitals here doing booking and outpatient. Some of the crap that goes on is amazing. You still have drug reps that come in and provide food. They can no longer do the pens and crap like that or even samples I think. the medical industry as a whole seems to be very in need of restructuring.

[edbikerii]

OK, now we seem to have a dialogue, rather than a series of monologues in two different themes

Have you looked at the proposal I posted in this thread earlier?  Here it is again, if you're truly open to thinking about alternatives (and it sounds like you are):  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=55553.msg626068#msg626068  A key component of it is giving patients some control over how the money is spent, and on what.  If the patients have the option of spending their money on other healthcare items like their childrens' orthodontics, then perhaps the patients will exercise a little more care when visiting providers.  It is working well for many people right now.  I've read that patients in such systems are very happy with them.

Deductibles go up, but employers put the deductible amounts into medical savings accounts for the patients, so that the patients can save up for medical expenses that they deem worthwhile, like check-ups, prevention, maintenance, etc.  The insurance company is interested in avoiding the big payout things that will cause them to lose money, so they encourage the check-ups, etc.  Instead of visiting the Emergency Room for minor things like runny noses and sore throats, patients would be more likely to call their doctor, or visit a clinic, or call an 800 number for advice from a nurse practitioner.

Of course, I'm assuming that the proposal is not perfect, and I've asked for feedback.

I wont deny that providers are expensive, they certainly are. Part of it though is that you have people going in with no coverage that cant pay. Making insurance more costly or harder to get will only make it worse. The frivolous malpractice suits sure do not help either.

I would think though that if insurance were to do it right, they would support lower cost hospitals, not necessarily bad ,just lower cost, the more expensive hospitals might bring their costs in line. It would also help though if hospitals were more efficient too. My wife works for one a of the hospitals here doing booking and outpatient. Some of the crap that goes on is amazing. You still have drug reps that come in and provide food. They can no longer do the pens and crap like that or even samples I think. the medical industry as a whole seems to be very in need of restructuring.

[BobbyR]

i think it's interesting that many people like bobbyR, who are self-described conservatives are crossing party lines on this though.

just curious though: why is it conservatives weren't up in arms when two wars were raging, and were never accounted for in budget at all? for that matter, why do conservatives never seem to care about the defense budget? all that laissez-faire economics requires a strong arm?

I am as Conservative as I was in the 1970's. The so called Conservatives have moved so far right, I am almost a Liberal according to their positions.

Ed, the Wars drains our resources. I was caught up in one, and you have no idea what it costs in money and lives to get what appears to be no positive outcome like Vietnam. So the Wars are part of our fiscal problems.

I may be Conservative, but I do not right from wrong. The third party insurers and not funding reseach, their goal is to collect more premiums than they pay out in claims. Like any other Insurance Company.

As I have said earlier l am not sure the US is ready to convert to the NHS model you will find in Europe. I would advocate an INDEPENDENT not profit option. The Government would cover the premiums for the poor as they do now, so you would be paying for what you pay for now. Medicaid would be dismantled, and perhaps the VA, since private Hospitals may offer better care closer to home, or more specialized care in some of our top Medical centers.

This independent Company would be able to negotiate prices with Drug Companies, and since they do not trade stock, Doctors, and not Wall Street influences care decisions.

The existing Companies can certainly bid for business in the Marketplace as they do now. Large Companies can stay as they are now providing employee benefits through US Healtcare, etc. If an Employee wishes to opt out and go with the public option, they would get what the employer is paying the preferred Company for benefits and go Public. If they decided to be cute and take the money an run, it would be taxed at 100%

Not a perfect solution, but once that preserves free enterprise, limits Federal inflluence and maybe get some decent care for for people. I am all about people.



  


Small employers would be able to cover employees, and self employed individuals could buy an affordable policy.

[paulages]

i think it's interesting that many people like bobbyR, who are self-described conservatives are crossing party lines on this though.

just curious though: why is it conservatives weren't up in arms when two wars were raging, and were never accounted for in budget at all? for that matter, why do conservatives never seem to care about the defense budget? all that laissez-faire economics requires a strong arm?

This independent Company would be able to negotiate prices with Drug Companies, and since they do not trade stock, Doctors, and not Wall Street influences care decisions.

This is exactly what went wrong with medicare. Medicare part D, was designed specifically to destroy itself in my opinion, when the republicans insisted that Medicare not be able to negotiate drug prices. Combine that with private companies (with names that sound like medicare, giving the impression that they are actually medicare) billing the govt exorbitantly for things such as the infamous $1200/mo. rental wheelchair that only actually costs $400 to purchase, and you get the supposed inefficiency.

Insurance companies do nothing but handle the finances between you and the healthcare industry. How can anyone argue that taking the profit out of the payment part of the picture will not lower costs? are the insurance companies innovating anything???

[HavocTurbo]

I haven't been doing much research on it... but how does this differ from an HSA without the personal responsibility?

OK, now we seem to have a dialogue, rather than a series of monologues in two different themes

Have you looked at the proposal I posted in this thread earlier?  Here it is again, if you're truly open to thinking about alternatives (and it sounds like you are):  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=55553.msg626068#msg626068  A key component of it is giving patients some control over how the money is spent, and on what.  If the patients have the option of spending their money on other healthcare items like their childrens' orthodontics, then perhaps the patients will exercise a little more care when visiting providers.  It is working well for many people right now.  I've read that patients in such systems are very happy with them.

Deductibles go up, but employers put the deductible amounts into medical savings accounts for the patients, so that the patients can save up for medical expenses that they deem worthwhile, like check-ups, prevention, maintenance, etc.  The insurance company is interested in avoiding the big payout things that will cause them to lose money, so they encourage the check-ups, etc.  Instead of visiting the Emergency Room for minor things like runny noses and sore throats, patients would be more likely to call their doctor, or visit a clinic, or call an 800 number for advice from a nurse practitioner.

Of course, I'm assuming that the proposal is not perfect, and I've asked for feedback.