|
brad about: I Heart Gov
Aaron about: I Heart Gov
the = they
Aaron about: I Heart Gov
Ok, I assumed that all insurance companies would be operating under the same rules. The should fix that part.
brad about: I Heart Gov
I try to find an article explaining why its such a bad idea... but in short, people wouldn't move physically, they just buy their insurance from another state. right now you have to have a policy underwritten in the state where you live. state laws can then be used to differentiate insurance systems. Remember Mass has their own system as does Hawaii.
State to State could work if they were all playing by the same Fed rules, everyone has to buy the same basic poilcy. The republican plan lacks the federal regulation. Its a free for all. Allowing the Healthy (buys cheap insurance) to migrate their plans to certain states that offer cheaper premiums. The sick would be left in smaller and smaller sized groups which will lead to higher and higher premiums. If your unhealthy. You are in trouble.
Aaron about: I Heart Gov
I'm confused by Brad's post below. Why wouldn't competing insurance nationwide be good? If its a federal bill with federal regulation how could individual states "lax their laws"? And why would healthy people move to a different state? Especially if they could get the insurance by any company anywhere. I'm confused.
brad about: I Heart Gov
Wes' last post is dead on.
wes about: I Heart Gov
Wether or not we go social system, the Baby Boomers will fuck us. It's already happening (look at the growth in costs over the last 5-10 yrs). When they can't afford private coverage they will all go on medicare and we will pay for it anyways. Again, the amount of care and the costs are fixed (unless we find efficiencies, tort reform, etc). The discussion is how to distribute the cost.
Saying, I don't want my tax dollars paying for other people's care is an empty argument. We already do. The difference is if it's universal all those people w/o insurance at the ER now go into the insurance pool, thus increasing efficiency.
wes about: I Heart Gov
I understand how an ER works. I am not suggesting that is how it works now. I'm trying to discuss macro-scale concepts and I must not articulate them very well.
My point is simply that a private model can't be efficient if we still have the "pitfalls" of a socialized system coupled w/ it. That's why our current system doesn't work. We can't all pay our own way and "live within our means" if we also have to subsides 1/2 the population. We either need to go full-blown social so that we achieve effiencies (economies of scale & scope) or stay private and stop paying for those who can't. Otherwise the system will forever be inefficient.
derek about: I Heart Gov
that's all i'm asking. i don't care how it gets done. if you want to call if fixing what we got, fine. if you want to call it Socialism, fine. if it's public or private, fine. all things i'm open to discuss. just make basic care available to all. my ideals aren't 1000 page documents with no room for editing.
bub about: I Heart Gov
And I wasn't calling out anyone in particular with my vitriol statement. Just a comment on the general conversation.
bub about: I Heart Gov
If someone dies outside a hospital with a burst appendix right now, it's because they didn't get to the hospital in time, not because the hospital wouldn't treat them for lack of insurance. The ER is required to treat people without insurance or wihout means to pay for it, by law. Will they treat you for a cold, no, that's what the triage dept is for. We can dispell that whole notion without debate. With regard to efficiency, the govt has proven time and again that they are incredibly inefficient. The main issue with single payer full-blown social health care is that if it's paid for with tax dollars, you run the risk of the system ending up like social security. If you've got consistant birth rates, you're fine, but if you have a huge number of people accessing a service and a small number paying for it, the system tends to go bankrupt. The babyboom killed social security and would likely do the same with health care. Ideals are a wonderful thing, but ifthey aren't agreed upon 100% and you aren't willing to compromise at all, you'll never see any change. It makes much more sense to me to fix what's broken, than to chuck it all and have to fix what's broken with another system. Avoiding undue risk is generally a good trait from a governing body...not making decisions just to make a decision. I'd love to see a stop gap that would cover the uninsured beyond emergency care. Something that would get them a doctor visit once or twice a year for preventative measures. Then tackle the high costs for the rest of us. Seems fairly reasonable to me.
wes about: I Heart Gov
Aaron, you're right, people don't have to use the mail. Like the auto insurance argument, you can opt out of sending letters, no one can opt-out of healthcare, unless we go full-blown private model and let people w/o insurance or the ability to pay out of pocket for their busrt appendix die outside the hospitals. That's never going to happen, nor would I want it, but economically it makes more sense then our current shitty hybrid system.
What else can you NOT opt-out of that we compare healthcare to? K-12 education...security (police/fire/millitary)...all socialized and paid for w/ taxes. You don't get to opt-out of those and no one complains about Karl Marx because we pay taxes for firemen. That's how we need to frame the healthcare argument because that is what it is most like. OR we allow poor and elderly people to opt-out and refuse care.
Abby about: I Heart Gov
Thewsie, living within your means is not a silly notion at all!! It is key..the problem is some very hard working people can't afford the basics (like health insurance and food) on their incomes.
wes about: I Heart Gov
Thews, I think everyone agrees w/ living within their means and most of your basic beliefs. I agree waaay more then it seems, I just think your hard-line policies don't necessarily reflect that. I, like Brad, think you regurgitate right-wing talking points that don't mesh w/ what you believe, or make any sense. And I'll say the millitary is a gov't entity that's run efficiently. Where's your answer to how national GDP has historically been at its hightest when social programs and "ditribution of wealth" has as well?
I think the current Bill sucks balls, but I want Obama to pass anything he can, even if it's just to be the hero. People resist change and if we can't get the wide-sweeping change we need all at once, we have to excpet incremental steps, just like we did w/ voting rights, civil rights, and pretty much any & all reform historically. That's how it works.
Like I said before, I want maximum efficiency (that's my hard-line virtue) and the only way to achieve the greatest level is a totaly private or a totaly social model. Hybrids don't work. I don't think a total private system is practical because it would exclude half the population, so let's go full-blown social. Remember, we're not talking about healthcare per se, just how to pay for it. In theory the cost is fixed (total US healthcare = x). If the argument is how do we know the gov't is capable of doing it w/o fucking it up...I don't have an answer for that. I honestly don't trust that they can either, but that should be the national debate, not whether Karl Marx will send my grnadma to a death panel. If congress is to much of a shitshow to accomplish anything of value, then I want both sides to fix THAT issue first and foremost.
That's why I think the most important issue is campaign finance reform. Our congress will never do the people's will until they are no longer beholden to lobbyists and corporate influence.
brad about: I Heart Gov
Doctors havent been brought into the fold. Are you fucking nuts.... THEY ENDROSE THE BILL!
brad about: I Heart Gov
selling insurance across state lines is one of the dumbest ideas ever, and you are simply verbatim spelling out talking points and obviously do understand the issue Thews.. When congress revoked regulation on credit cards Delaware, Utah and South Dakota made their laws so lax that every major bank flocked to their state. Why do you think your credit card bill is mailed to SD. Where is the largest post office in the country? Souix Falls SD, actual population 125,000.
same thing will happen in health care. Some state will line up to attract business. lax their laws and the healthy people who want cheap coverage will flock there. While the "less desirable" will be excluded. It does the exact opposite of creating pooled risk, which is how you lower insurance costs.
I agree with Bub, if the insurance system is not going to be mandated by government, then insurance providers should be non-profit. Your right to fight for Tort Reform. And I agree that we get rid of elite healthcare plans only to government officials. I think every american should have that plan...
Aaron about: I Heart Gov
The postal service is easier to fix because people don't HAVE to use the mail.
Aaron about: I Heart Gov
hypothetically - what if the post office were run as efficient as possible but still can't break even? There are two options: decrease service or increase income. Would you prefer less service or paying say $2 per stamp and delivery only 4 days a week? Just curious? I personally think we should start shrinking our postal service because of changing tech/habits. (The junk mail industry's top lobbiests are probably wining and dining whoever makes this decision as I type).
Thews about: I Heart Gov
D- Your take sounds good in theory. The problem is the gov't is never efficient. I'm still waiting to hear a single example of a gov't program that runs efficiently. They can't even deliver mail efficiently or break even doing it, it scares the shit out of me to think they could be in charge of healthcare. Who determines the STANDARD for care, it would be great if it was a panel of peer appointed doctors. Doctors haven't even been brought into the fold on this this, just fucking politicians. I honestly don't think they give a damn about PATIENT CARE, they just want to be re-elected. I truely believe Obama doesn't give a shit what this bill is, he just wants to be the dude that goes down in the history books for imposing a liberal healthcare policy. Or "champion of the poor." If extending benefits to everyone will truely save us money I'd be for it, but I've never heard of a situation where you gets more benefits for less money, so I don't buy it. I hate to be so cynical, I just DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. I have a hard time believing many of you have no problem extending that amount of trust to an institution that can't keep there own people in check, can't "live within there means" or take responsibility for their fuck ups. I am flabbergasted by that. I would feel much better about this if there was a private entity to run this. I am nauseated to think of how much this will cost and how much power it gives the government. I don't like it and I think the manner we've arrived here is frought with corruption and dishonesty.
Thews about: I Heart Gov
Abs - Or not fucking. Bub, everyone really, I apologize for injecting a bunch of extreme hard-line vitriol into the well-intended bublican brainstorm. I've been stressed, mostly healthcare-related of late. That being said, anyone who thinks living within your means or being more personally responsible is a silly notion is a fuckface. Here are some easy quick hits of legislation that would remedy the healthcare issue withoutr requiring the socialization of 1/6 of the US economy. Allow insurance carriers to sell in all states. Increased competition = lower costs. Cap malpractice awards or similar tort reform. I would suggest rooting out fraud and abuse of Medicare/caid, but there is fraud and abuse in inefficient gov't programs, maybe some private company could oversee the operations. Stop giving cadillac plans to politicans on taxpayer dime.
wes about: I Heart Gov
I agree 100%. I rail against Thews's links because they fire me up so much. There is so much noise being created by supporters of the status-quo that most people don't know what to believe so they fear any kind of meaningful change. example: referencing Karl Marx.
derek about: I Heart Gov
here's an idea: efficiency. the best way i know to be efficient is to be well organized and deal with problems early. i really hope that we are all of the point of view that no one should be allowed to die do to financial status. so, in my mind, denying early treatment for this reason means your not managing your costs. it also seems to me that healthcare should, for te most part, be equal for everyone. you don't get to jump up an organ donor list because your rich (tho i'm sure that's not entirely true), so why should other treatment vary? if every citizen gets the same treatment to the same standards you begin to eliminate a lot of innefficiency. how much money is wasted determining if someone can deny care? sure, if you're super rich and super crazy you can pay to go to the doctor more often than the STANDARD care, why not? but everyone should get the standard. if you're hurt, you go to the hospital and the help you. no questions means increase efficiency. standards mean less debates about liability. here comes my bleeding heart again, but it's also the moral thing to do. these debates often sound like you'd let someone rot outside the hospital if they forgot their wallet. it's unconscionable to determine HEALTH CARE on politics. any arguement that doesn't end with universal treatment in one of the wealthiest and most advanced nations on the planet is embarrassing and we're sitting here discussing "welfare states" and "socialism." it really truly makes me sick. and please simmer yourselves with the "people need to live within their means." i don't think anyone on this bored is trying to encourage wastefulness. that's silly. just like our political system that makes it impossible to have an obviously good idea (like universal health care, a clean environment, energy independence, etc.) without naysayers, partisan fucktards, biased corporations, and so on jump in with "why nots" rather than "how tos." it's stupid and disconcerting and we do it among ourselves. the only way to get shit done is to have ideals and stick to them, uncomprimisingly. i for one, want universal health care.... even for poor, drunk, homeless, non-contributors to society. it's the right thing to stand for. and we have hundreds of douche-bags that get paid a lot of money with a lot of benefits to figure out how it could work. maybe they should do that instead of trying to undermine the others. sorry, i am just so pissed by the ridiculousness of all of this debate about who not to cover. i am not kidding - it'd be way more efficient to just cover everyone.
Abby about: I Heart Gov
there is no 100% safe form of birthcontrol except for sterilization...and most forms are expensive...
bub about: I Heart Gov
simply put, it is very easy to not have kids. having said that, i'm clearly not as hard-lined as thews, but there is merit in some of what he says. it's foolish to live well beyond your means. it's delusional to think that those without insurance aren't enjoying some luxuries that they could forgo in order to afford insurance. equating the economical success of the US and it's move to a "welfare state" is, at best, circumstancial and, at worst, dishonest. the point of my post was to actually talk about real solutions to real problems with our system and other system and get some less vitriolic dialogue going. anyone feel like tossing out ideas on how to get the costs down on our current system? or how to improve some of the issues of some other systems? i'm a fan of forcing the for-profit insurance companies to become non-profits. maybe we need to spread out some of the R&D costs of these major breakthroughs/medications/research projects to people in other industrialized countries so we aren't bearing so much of the weight for things the rest of the world also uses. some sort of tort reform to help lower the costs of malpractice insurance could help. anyone else?
wes about: I Heart Gov
Once everyone "lives within their means" w/o subsidized any gov't programs of any kind, see how many people can afford architects and other services that pay for all of our paychecks.
|
