Originally Posted by l2ridehd

...Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill....

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.
...It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such...

I don't know where we disagree. I love this list. Some of the same items are included on my list. But as you said, few of the ideas are included in any of the legislative alternatives being considered.

The challenge is: how do we get the Congress to consider our well thought out ideas?

VK-
The point is that the government never runs anything effeciently. Ask the auto dealers how the cash for clunkers is going. The physicians supporting single payor are typically the academic physicians. They don[t really work for a living. The priviate practice docs hate the idea. There is going to be continued pressure to see more and more patients with less and less physicians. There will have to be rationing based on the ability to pay. Under any plan we are considering, other than the Canadian system, there is a private practice component.
Again, Google "Consumer Driven Health Care" and take a look at that idea. We have to get away from first dollar coverage and provide some incentive for the consumer to shop for care. In our plan, I pay the first $1,250 and the insurance picks up 80% after that to a maximum out of pocket of $3,000. You tie this to an HSA where you can put about $4,000 away every year pre tax. You really decide what care you "need". This makes way more sense than Obamacare, or whatever.

Originally Posted by Number 6

...Ask the auto dealers how the cash for clunkers is going...The priviate practice docs hate the idea. There is going to be continued pressure to see more and more patients with less and less physicians. There will have to be rationing based on the ability to pay. Under any plan we are considering, other than the Canadian system, there is a private practice component....

I beg to differ on C4C. My son works for Ford and C4C has provided a much-needed stimulus to late summer sales. There is a risk that C4C will pull buyers who might have bought in the later part of the year into a current buying decision, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

Back to healthcare...

None of the discussion here or any of the legislation being considered has said a thing about eliminating private practice physicians. All the hulaballoo is about healthcare insurance, mainly will it be private or have a public option? I don't think a word has been uttered about nationalizing healthcare in the U.S.

A lot of private practice doctors and their employers would love the idea of being able to avoid dealing with hundreds of different policies, benefits, claim procedures, forms, etc. in favor of a single payer of insurance claims. Some of the best doctors in the country, who work for some of the best known and respected multi-specialty clinics already work for a salary--just as they would in a nationalized system. All the doctors who work for the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and others of the same quality already work for a salary. One seldom if ever hears complaints of a failing of care from those organizations.

If the doctors who belong to PNHC are even close to being right in their statement that 41% of healthcare costs derive from the inefficiencies of a multi-payer system, the idea of a single-payer insurer certainly seems to justify some consideration.

As far as "rationing healthcare" is concerned--it's already being rationed. Either Medicare or the many insurance companies decide what will be paid for and what won't. When you say that medical care needs to be "between the doctor and the patient", it hasn't been that way for years. Before your doctor prescribes any sort of test or procedure, he checks first whether your insurance company will pay him and how much. The number of days you stay in a hospital has nothing to do with how you feel or whether you and your doctor feel you're ready to go home. It has everything to do with how many days the insurance company will pay for hospitalization for a particular procedure or condition. If they won't get paid, they will not perform the procedure or prescribe the test or let you stay in the hospital. If that's not rationing, I don't know what is.

Regarding your comments on the patient who pays initial claims being "more responsible", I would suggest from first-hand experience that it doesn't work. I have insurance like yours, with even a higher deductible. But once my deductible was met earlier this year, and when an internist prescribed a test as part of a pre-surgery physical (a CYA test?), I wasn't about to argue with him. It wasn't going to cost me much of anything and without his approval, the surgery wasn't going to be performed. So I willingly submitted to the ridiculously conservative test. Your idea that deductibles will motivate patients to "shop" and make decisions to control costs is good in theory, but not practice.

Will you vote for any elected official who votes for or signs a health care bill that exempts themselves or other federal employees?
I wont.
If it is such a good idea, it should apply to them too. Period.

Until the government can run the Post Office and at least break even, until the government can find ways to reduce fraud in medicare and other programs, until the governemnt can learn to run a business, lets not allow them to have more programs to harm this county!! The difference between a business and our government is this, is a business runs in the red all the time, it closes it doors, if our government runs in the red, it just comes to the people for more money and more money and more money and more money, where does it end!!! So why talk about healthcare at all, until we fix these issues

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Will you vote for any elected official who votes for or signs a health care bill that exempts themselves or other federal employees?
I wont.
If it is such a good idea, it should apply to them too. Period.

It will. Who told you it wouldn't?

Oh, right. The same people who've been telling you that there would be Death Panels and euthanasia. Oh, I almost forgot. Sarah Palin would have been forced to abort poor little Trig.

(And isn't it funny how Ms. Palin got her panties in a knot when others mention her kids, but she sees nothing wrong in using one of them as the focal point of some really bizarre theory.)

Originally Posted by MMOB1

It will. Who told you it wouldn't?

Oh, right. The same people who've been telling you that there would be Death Panels and euthanasia. Oh, I almost forgot. Sarah Palin would have been forced to abort poor little Trig.

(And isn't it funny how Ms. Palin got her panties in a knot when others mention her kids, but she sees nothing wrong in using one of them as the focal point of some really bizarre theory.)

You are right. Some people hear what they want , See what they want and pay more attention to Beck , Limbaugh and others instead of finding out the facts for themselves.

Originally Posted by Topper1

You are right. Some people hear what they want , See what they want and pay more attention to Beck , Limbaugh and others instead of finding out the facts for themselves.

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.

Jim Joe: I don't like the bill and will not vote for anyone that votes for it.
What you should have said was Gotcha and you Betcha. We need more of Sarah.

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.

Thanks for the link JIMJOE !

As for an apology....dont think so. This is the elite group who finds those of us who post here offensive and detracting to the messag board.

THEY dont need to apologize....YOU must be wrong because they are always right !

AND the bill may...not may...WILL change as it passes but your point is well taken !

I do remain suspicious when some of the newbies seem to have taken up where some of the elitists so prevalent in 2008, left off. Could it be some have reincarnated? Sure does sound like it.
Once a person launches into their usual tempo, a style seems to surface.
Anyway the philosophy is sure the same. Died in the wool, staunch partisans whether right or wrong. And yes to a degree aren't we all!!!
Maybe, unlike their predecessors, they will not be so opposed to addressing issues posted instead of personal attacking and party defending. We'll soon see, or have we already?

btk

Originally Posted by Bucco

Thanks for the link JIMJOE !

As for an apology....dont think so. This is the elite group who finds those of us who post here offensive and detracting to the messag board.

THEY dont need to apologize....YOU must be wrong because they are always right !

AND the bill may...not may...WILL change as it passes but your point is well taken !

The only apology I want is from those who attack the speaker and not the speech. I urge anyone on either side of this debate to renounce personal attacks. When Palin is wrong, she is wrong, not stupid. When President Obama is wrong, he is wrong, not stupid.
When you are wrong and shown to be wrong, admit it.

The answer to the health care issue is that we as a nation must decide if we will provide government subsidized care to everyone who is physically present in the country. If so, then we must pay for it through increased taxes. How much health care does the government subsidized care include?
If you believe that the government should cover everyone (including illegal or unauthorized immigrants) and cover everything, you must urge tax increases on everyone to pay for it. It will just not be possible to do this without tax increases on everyone.
That is really a decision to use the force of government through taxes to make all citizens to spend money on health care that they would chose to spend on something else, ( a better house, a better education for themselves or their children, saving for retirement, or just recreation). If you are against tax increases on everyone, then you are in favor of rationing the way current health care is received by some based on wealth, to provide it to all based on lack of ability to earn or refusal to earn their own way.
Those against the public option, are saying citizens should be allowed to decide if they want to spend their money on health care or something else..
But they cannot claim also there is a magical way to cover all health care for everyone without tax increases. They are in favor of health care rationing based on wealth.
Now.. to be honest we ration homes based on wealth, education based on wealth, and recreation, clothes, food, and almost everything else..
People in favor of more welfare spending want less rationing based on wealth.
I believe that this country must use incentives to thrive. We must reward hard work and risk taking. It is what makes us great.
I believe that there must be basic health care for everyone but not perfect health care for everyone. The parameters of that will need extensive debate.
When I buy health insurance I can buy low deductible, high co pays, or gold plated coverage. I don't think people who get health care coverage from the government should get the gold plated when those who pay for their own must make the difficult choices to buy what they can afford. If you say they both should get the same, I say you are in favor of removing the incentives of hard work and risk that make this country great. If there is no reward for hard work, why should I work hard for good grades in high school, prepare for college entrance examines, work hard in college for good grades, prepare for the law school entrance exam, work hard in law school, and work hard in my job? Why would I spend all that money going to college if there was no reward in the future if I was successful, when my high school classmates who did not take the risk of failing law school, flunking the bar exam, running out of money, and not getting a good enough job to pay for school debts of 6 figures? Why would our children go through all the same things to become a doctor? Why would I do all that if I get the same health care no matter what?
I would not.
There is nothing wrong with earning a living. I am proud of what I have done and I am against a health care program as well as a tax system that tells me I was stupid to drive truck while I was in college, worked in a paint factory and for the attorney general while I was in law school, saved my money for retirement, while coming from a lower middle class family that could not help pay anything to help the first person in the family to graduate from college. I earned everything I have and I am against bailing out corporations, unions, banks, clunker owners, and the health care of every person who is physically present in the United States of America.
You decide what lesson you want to teach the next generation.

Originally Posted by emilyjean

Until the government can run the Post Office and at least break even, until the government can find ways to reduce fraud in medicare and other programs, until the governemnt can learn to run a business, lets not allow them to have more programs to harm this county!! The difference between a business and our government is this, is a business runs in the red all the time, it closes it doors, if our government runs in the red, it just comes to the people for more money and more money and more money and more money, where does it end!!! So why talk about healthcare at all, until we fix these issues

Right On!!

Originally Posted by JimJoe

The answer to the health care issue is that we as a nation must decide if we will provide government subsidized care to everyone who is physically present in the country. If so, then we must pay for it through increased taxes. How much health care does the government subsidized care include?
If you believe that the government should cover everyone (including illegal or unauthorized immigrants) and cover everything, you must urge tax increases on everyone to pay for it. It will just not be possible to do this without tax increases on everyone.
That is really a decision to use the force of government through taxes to make all citizens to spend money on health care that they would chose to spend on something else, ( a better house, a better education for themselves or their children, saving for retirement, or just recreation). If you are against tax increases on everyone, then you are in favor of rationing the way current health care is received by some based on wealth, to provide it to all based on lack of ability to earn or refusal to earn their own way.
Those against the public option, are saying citizens should be allowed to decide if they want to spend their money on health care or something else..
But they cannot claim also there is a magical way to cover all health care for everyone without tax increases. They are in favor of health care rationing based on wealth.
Now.. to be honest we ration homes based on wealth, education based on wealth, and recreation, clothes, food, and almost everything else..
People in favor of more welfare spending want less rationing based on wealth.
I believe that this country must use incentives to thrive. We must reward hard work and risk taking. It is what makes us great.
I believe that there must be basic health care for everyone but not perfect health care for everyone. The parameters of that will need extensive debate.
When I buy health insurance I can buy low deductible, high co pays, or gold plated coverage. I don't think people who get health care coverage from the government should get the gold plated when those who pay for their own must make the difficult choices to buy what they can afford. If you say they both should get the same, I say you are in favor of removing the incentives of hard work and risk that make this country great. If there is no reward for hard work, why should I work hard for good grades in high school, prepare for college entrance examines, work hard in college for good grades, prepare for the law school entrance exam, work hard in law school, and work hard in my job? Why would I spend all that money going to college if there was no reward in the future if I was successful, when my high school classmates who did not take the risk of failing law school, flunking the bar exam, running out of money, and not getting a good enough job to pay for school debts of 6 figures? Why would our children go through all the same things to become a doctor? Why would I do all that if I get the same health care no matter what?
I would not.
There is nothing wrong with earning a living. I am proud of what I have done and I am against a health care program as well as a tax system that tells me I was stupid to drive truck while I was in college, worked in a paint factory and for the attorney general while I was in law school, saved my money for retirement, while coming from a lower middle class family that could not help pay anything to help the first person in the family to graduate from college. I earned everything I have and I am against bailing out corporations, unions, banks, clunker owners, and the health care of every person who is physically present in the United States of America.
You decide what lesson you want to teach the next generation.

I like your thinking! Very Friedman like.