Well Reagan had it right 50 years ago.
He said dont do it.
Like you said, Regret, its way over the head of some Liberals.
.sdrawkcab tib a si gnikniht drainapS
voyager... so are you saying the system is fine the way it is?
Seems the problem is way over your head.
Socialized medicine may or may not be the answer but it isn't the problem either.
"Socialized medicine may or may not be the answer but it isn't the problem either."
Entitlements are the problem, and the socialization of medicine is part of that equation.
Futile, this crowd deals in rhetoric and one-liners. They prefer tough-talking slogans over problem solving and policy. Most conservatives can only answer "free market solutions" and "common sense conservatism"
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 9:54 AM
The free market has worked but has some problem that needed resolving. The Democrats drained the swamp to do it. You will pay dearly for this one.
I'm close to medicare and have the savings for out of country insurance. It will be a hassle but I will get good care.
(hint: "free market solutions" is not an answer)
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 10:07 AM
It will come a lot closer that socialized medicine as in Obamacare!
Ike aka Spaniard, "this crowd" resorts to one liners simply because that appears to be the limit of your comprehension level. Or haven't you ever thought of that? Apparently not.
We have Medicare, Medicaid, Free clinics, sliding fee clinics, and the State Child Health Insurance Programmes. We've got laws in some states mandating coverage by employers over a certain size. We've got programmes that cover members of the Armed Forces, programmes that cover Government Employees, and programmes that Cover veterans. We've got Rural Health programmes. We've got medical care provided through some schools.
Since the 1960s, when the government decided to make health care more affordable for all, it has become less so, despite all of these well-intentioned programmes to deal with it.
Now, we seem to have fallen for the notion that not having insurance is somehow the same thing as not having health care.
We've also fallen for the notion that people don't pay their bills because they can't, whereas many simply won't pay their bills, as opposed to 'cant' pay them.
There has become a mentality in America that we have a 'right' to health care, and that means that it should be free to the recipient. We also have a tendency to seek out expensive care instead of lower-cost alternatives, and then balk at paying the price once services have been recieved.
Many who have insurance also get sued because they won't pay their out-of-pocket expenses, their deductables, or their uncovered expenses, and those costs are also passed on to everyone else.
We also have a tendency to make unhealthy choices, and then to demand that society underwrite the costs of treating us for them. We'd rather take a pill for what ails us than make a lifestyle change to correct or prevent it, but we demand the society pay for the pill. We smoke, we're overweight, we're lazy, we're drug-dependent, and we drink too much, yet somehow we think it is incumbent upon society to cover the costs thereof.
The left's solution is to cover those costs, and then use the health care system to 'whip us into shape' by means of the health care system that provides for us. In the left's view, your lifestyle choices are the fault of society at large, and society has a responsibility to correct them (as with the smoking-cessation policies).
The right's solution is to make people pay their own bills, while providing basic services to those who cannot do so. In the right's views, freedom entails the freedom to make unhealthy choices, but the chooser bears the responsibility for his choices.
I happen to think that the right has it right.
Entitlements are the problem with healthcare?
They are a problem to the budget definately, but
please elaborate on their effects to healthcare.
Well we have had a mostly free market system for awhile and it hasn't really worked great. The reason I think people headed towards social medicine is because it has worked in other countries, atleast better than our system is working. It is a more proven system so even in the 2000s pages they wrote it was less effort and guess work on the effects.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 10:54 AM
Not buying that!
How great socialized medicine works depends on who you talk to.
Less GUESSWORK on the effects? From everything I read and hear, no one yet knows the total consequences... intended or otherwise of that piece of s*** called Obamacare.
Also I want to note, if you want to talk about free market healthcare you can't have it without
taking away patents on medication, taking away tariffs on drugs from other countries (i.e. who knows what the chinease will put in our drugs), and taking away licensing of doctors, hospitals, etc and allowing them to operate based on market-based certification (example of this is lasik eye surgery, in which anyone could go be certified to do it in less than 6 months)
free market healthcare also promotes people to avoid paying now for preventive treatment and more often seeking expensive emergency treatment which drives all costs up.
Our current system isn't very free market either, in that you typically have to go to an 'in-network' office
Have Wheels, sure it might effect this country different, but it works in many countries.
In 1993 switzerland had this same debate, and passed health care reform. by a 51/49 vote... switzerland is set up pretty close to the US politically in a liberal/conservative way.
Now 17 years later something like 85% of the country likes or strongly likes their healthcare system.
Switzerland has tough immigration laws along with people that work instead of depending on government.
Here is something to look at.
Too many people feeding off the government teat already. Every socialistic program from the left encourages more of it.
Sooner or later we become top heavy with takers and way short of producers, then comes the desperate attempts to shore it up with borrowed money, then a bankrupt country follows. I offer Greece as an example. For an example closer to home... look at Social Security & Medicare. We are trapped in that loop. Most people drawing today were forced into paying their entire lives and when it fails are going to be totally screwed because they have not planned ahead.
Most Americans are Center Right, and do not want the government as their Nanney.
everyone always points to Canada wait times...
Canada VOTED to have their wait times that high. Same with UK. Citizens have the choice to increase wait times/decrease cost or vice versa, UK in the last couple of years increased premiums to reduce wait times.
Switzerland is #2 on the list of wait times, behind the US... cheaper, 99.5% covered, everyone pays the same cost, you can choose your level of deductible to raise/lower premiums.
Seems they have the best of both worlds
"About 11% of the Swiss GNP goes to healthcare, against about 16% of ours. Per person, that worked out in 2007 to roughly $4,417 in Switzerland and about $7,290 per person here"
"Entitlements are the problem with healthcare?
please elaborate on their effects to healthcare."
I did that in my second post on this thread.
We have not had a 'mostly free market' system in this country for over forty years, with the advent of the "Great Society", when we first started making 'health care more affordable'.
The rise of insurance services came about because 'making health care more affordable' has made it less so. It is now assumed that health insurance is a necessity for health care services.
But the Swiss don't have to pay the entitlements we do. Lets end the entitlement to cover the costs you can't have it all. BTW we have a better standard of living.
310,715,000 US (Bring us your poor)
7,782,900 Swiss (Does not allow easy immigration)
The Swiss work and too many in the US mooch.
Any idea what happened to Theorist? You appear to have runned her off. As a matter of fact I thought sure I saw her picture on a milk carton this morning.
"Any idea what happened to Theorist?"
I've wondered that myself. We had a couple of new posters over the weekend, and I thought one of them may have been Theorist reincarnated, but I'm not sure.
It wasn't my intent to have anyone runnoft.
Theorist insisted a while back she has never posted under another name??
Why does the US spend so much more on health care than the rest of the world? Including the nation that have "socialized" health care?
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:33 PM
Could it have anything to do with the fact that we insist on providing it for all of our illegals and the deadbeat citizens who refuse to provide for themselves? ?
How come when government offered to pay up to $40 for your TV converter box the $39 boxes went up to $60 in a short time and without government help, TVs went down in price?
When government started paying for some folks medical care, it was like offering to buy your relative's dinner. You know he's going to order steak over the hamburger that he would order if it was his money.
When government tried to fix this by capping what it would pay, the folks that were paying were charged more to make up the difference.
The more folks got medical insurance that was paid for by the employer, the more they demanded the better higher priced services with no regard to the fairness of the charges.
"Hospitals and docs pass the bill on to those of us who day have insurance. Costs rise, insurance premiums rise. The insured are already paying for those who don't have health insurance, making it ever more expensive, resulting in more people being unable to afford health care."
And, if we provide insurance to the uninsured we'll be picking up the cost of their premiums, which will amount to the same thing. The sum total of premiums has to equal the costs of services paid plus expenses in order for the insurance companies to break even. It has to exceed the cost of services paid plus expenses in order for the insurance companies to be profitable.
The cost of providing those services for people who don't pay for them will be picked up by us one way or the other. Mandating insurance doesn't fix that.
If they can't afford to pay their bills, they won't be able to afford to pay for their premiums. What have we gained?
"So how have medicare and medicaid made health care more expensive?"
In the early days of Medicare and Medicaid, health care providers were charging exhorbitant expenses to them, because they could. This became known as the WF&A (waste, fraud, and abuse), which 'cost-cutters' tell us is still rampant in the system.
As a convenience to the recipients, the health care providers began billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance directly, bypassing the patient (and thus keeping the overcharges from the recipients notice). This went unchecked for years.
To combat WF&A, they began scrutinizing bills, and challenging the health care providers to justify their billing. The health care providers began adding billing staffs to comply with the paperwork created, to deal with the justification issues, and to sort out covered vs. uncovered insurance. As billing became more complex, the size of the billing offices grew, and outside 'billing services' began to spring up. All of these complications add overhead to the cost of medical services. Instead of simply sending a bill for services rendered, the providers now had to file complex forms, and send bills both to the patient and to the insurance or insurances. Health care financial administration became an industry unto itself, at considerable cost.
A more recent complication to the billing structure has been the inclusion of 'health care networks', in which health care providers may join series of networks in which they agree to discount services in exchange for standardized billing and mutually-agreed-upon costs for services. Health care providers then had to deal with multi-tiered billing structures.
All of that comes at cost, and that cost is passed on to the recipients - via insurance if they have it or tacked onto the administrative charges in the bill to those who don't.
I think a free-market system would work well, too. People purchase their health care and they pay for it. Period.
That's not to say that the government can't help those in need. The government would simply reimburse patients for their purchases, as would private insurance. Or, they could provide those services via governmen-owned and operated facilities, such as the free clinics and sliding-fee clinics.
The people insured would be the ones who have to hassle with the insurance companies, with government directors, and with the hospital billing representatives, giving them a sense of ownership over their own health care choices.
The government and the insurance agencies can set such limitations on coverage, and it will be the responsibility of the patient to know those limitations. They are, after all, the buyer of both the insurance and the health care services, so they are the ones who should be concerned therewith.
Those who stand for nothing.... Fall for anything.
So how have medicare and medicaid made health care more expensive?
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM
WE have to make up the part the government wont pay the docs and hosps.
"Shap, I would be inclined to go for something like that but only if the HICs give up their anti-trust protection. Make all of these little monopolies that operate wholly within a single state compete nationwide."
That was one of the Republican proposals that Mr. Obama said did not exist.
"...Make all of these little monopolies that operate wholly within a single state compete nationwide."
Sounds good in theory, unfortunately, if put into practice the states would have less control than they do now, and this would precipitate a new "race to the bottom" with states vying with each other for business, by establishing the loosest possible management/financial standrards, making insurance companies ever less responsive.
We smoked her out. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Tight Spot... by whose calculations?
I am a man of constant sorrow and, yes, I prefer Dapper Dan to FOP.
That's what you get for thinking, Theorist. Been on vacation?
Naw, they never did turn me into a toad.
I take it you are not familiar with "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?". You should see the film.
I'm afraid I set the ball rolling on that one when I used the spelling 'Runnoft' for 'Ran Off'. :)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 9:20 PM
You cant run her off. One thing you can say is she stands by her guns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 8:46 AM
"I hate cows......"
Cannot argue that.
Verse 23... same as Verses 1 thru 22. Never been wrong on a subject yet! Weeeeeell in her estimation at least.
I didn't think liberals owned any guns to stand by... ;)
I think that just possibly be another one of those, "Don't do as I do... do as I say" scenarios when it comes to liberals owning guns.
For a fact, I personally know many who at least think they are liberal that own guns.
I didn't think liberals owned any guns to stand by... ;)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 10:29 AM
Just toy guns. They look like the real thing but just shoots blanks.
Well you guys label me as liberal, but my guns definately do not shoot blanks...
You can run but you can't hide or was it you can't hide but you can run. Some such nonsense.
Ever ask a Liberal what happened before the Big Bang?
'We also have a tendency to make unhealthy choices, and then to demand that society underwrite the costs of treating us for them.'
I was behind a lady today, on Broadway. Smoking, in her car, I can tell she is over weight by her reflection in her mirrors. And then, she turns into McDonalds.
Think I wanna pay for her healthcare costs?
Maybe if she actually cared about her health, I might care that she be helped.
Posting a comment requires a subscription.