Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Say what we will about not liking more government involvement in the healthcare system, the conundrum remains...

HOW DO WE STOP THE SKYROCKETING COST OF HEALTHCARE IN THE U.S.? IT IS UNAFFORDABLE AS IT IS AND THE RESULT IS THAT MORE AND MORE CITIZENS ARE FINDING THEMSELVES WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT INCREASES THE COST FOR THE REMAINING PEOPLE WHO HAVE INSURANCE AS WELL AS THE OVERALL COST.

IF NOT THE GOVERNMENT, SOMEONE PRESENT A RATIONAL SUGGESTION OF WHO CAN AND WILL TAKE THE ACTIONS TO ACCOMPLISH THE COST REDUCTIONS?

Then we need to fix the root cause of the problem - a downed economy with fewer jobs which provide health care due to inability to compete with cheap goods/services from communist/socialist countries.

Now, that may seem off-base, but when the economy is on the rise, unemployment is low, wages and benefits are high, and all of these "it costs too much" problems are minimal.

We all know of businesses which have closed because of foreign (especially from communist/socialist countries) competition. All of the other Western industrialized nations have significant tariff/trade protections so that their domestic industries remain vibrant. We don't. That disparity keeps gnawing on the US' ability to keep the domestic workforce from being fully employed, resulting in lowered wages and/or reduced benefits. The more employers have to reduce employee compensation (especially benefits such as health care) to compete, the more people find themselves with higher out-of-pocket health care costs. That's the cause and effect which created the conundrum. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

So, we need to recognize that higher medical costs are a symptom of a much bigger problem, and that trying to nationalize medical care won't make health care any better or more affordable. HR 3200 is an economic placebo which many folk believe may cure what ails them, when in fact the real economic cancer continues to grow.

So, if the politicians are correct, and that the bailouts will spur the economy, then HR 3200 should be superfluous. If they are wrong, then other broad economic measures, such as tariffs and import taxes just like other countries have, are needed to backstop domestic manufacturers and service providers. When people are employed at good jobs that pay well (like they used too), we all win.

Cause and Effect. We seem to want to ignore what these are.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...higher medical costs are a symptom of a much bigger problem, and that trying to nationalize medical care won't make health care any better or more affordable...

We agree on a lot of things, Steve, but not this one. When a country spends almost twice as much for healthcare on a per capita basis or as a percentage of GDP than other developed countries and still leaves 20% of the population without coverage it's a helluva lot more than a symtom.

However, I do agree with you on the need to attack root causes. But my question was "...who can and will" take the actions necessary to reverse the escalation of healthcare costs? Who is it that will correct the problem of "a downed economy with fewer jobs which provide health care due to inability to compete with cheap goods/services from communist/socialist countries" that you cite? Who is it that will put in place "tariff/trade protections so that...domestic industries remain vibrant" so that we can reverse the problem of "the domestic workforce...being fully employed" so that "employers (don't) have to reduce employee compensation (especially benefits such as health care) to compete"? Even you and I might not agree that protectionism will work. If anything, the professional economists seem to have reached a consensus, saying that protectionism will not work.

I might even throw in the problem of growing illegal immigration. Whatever the number...20, 30 or 40 million...the rest of us are paying for healthcare for all these illegal immigrants. HR 3200 would make that practice the law of the land. Who will fix that problem? Has there been any consensus whatsoever among our elected representatives on how to address illegal immigration? On one hand the employer special interests lobby to keep our borders porous so they can enjoy cheap labor. Then there are those who argue that nothing should be done if it results in "amnesty" for the illegals who have successfully crossed our borders. Bottom line...nothing is happening or can be expected to happen on this expensive "cause" of the problem.

So, while I can't disagree with you on some of the "cause and effect" issues, our elected reps have shown no inclination to address the causal factors. Given that "the problem" is real and is growing, what alternative do we have other than to agree that our elected reps address themselves to the effect by reforming the healthcare system itself?

Will I argue that we should trust "the 435" to do a good job in "re-forming" U.S. healthcare? Do I agree with all the elements of HR 3200? Heck no to both questions! What has Congress done to earn our trust and confidence lately? But maybe conceding that the only answer is to let them work on the effect is an easier proposition than expecting them to fix the cause(s).

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

We agree on a lot of things, Steve, but not this one. When a country spends almost twice as much for healthcare on a per capita basis or as a percentage of GDP than other developed countries and still leaves 20% of the population without coverage it's a helluva lot more than a symtom.

However, I do agree with you on the need to attack root causes. But my question was "...who can and will" take the actions necessary to reverse the escalation of healthcare costs? Who is it that will correct the problem of "a downed economy with fewer jobs which provide health care due to inability to compete with cheap goods/services from communist/socialist countries" that you cite? Who is it that will put in place "tariff/trade protections so that...domestic industries remain vibrant" so that we can reverse the problem of "the domestic workforce...being fully employed" so that "employers (don't) have to reduce employee compensation (especially benefits such as health care) to compete"? Even you and I might not agree that protectionism will work. If anything, the professional economists seem to have reached a consensus, saying that protectionism will not work.

I might even throw in the problem of growing illegal immigration. Whatever the number...20, 30 or 40 million...the rest of us are paying for healthcare for all these illegal immigrants. HR 3200 would make that practice the law of the land. Who will fix that problem? Has there been any consensus whatsoever among our elected representatives on how to address illegal immigration? On one hand the employer special interests lobby to keep our borders porous so they can enjoy cheap labor. Then there are those who argue that nothing should be done if it results in "amnesty" for the illegals who have successfully crossed our borders. Bottom line...nothing is happening or can be expected to happen on this expensive "cause" of the problem.

So, while I can't disagree with you on some of the "cause and effect" issues, our elected reps have shown no inclination to address the causal factors. Given that "the problem" is real and is growing, what alternative do we have other than to agree that our elected reps address themselves to the effect by reforming the healthcare system itself?

Will I argue that we should trust "the 435" to do a good job in "re-forming" U.S. healthcare? Do I agree with all the elements of HR 3200? Heck no to both questions! What has Congress done to earn our trust and confidence lately? But maybe conceding that the only answer is to let them work on the effect is an easier proposition than expecting them to fix the cause(s).

In the end, we don't have a choice. They will do what they do, take the bows once it's done, and hopefully will be voted out of office in 2010. In many ways, the deal is already done, and they are just planning to have it fall when it can be "quickly forgotten news."

Originally Posted by SteveZ

In the end, we don't have a choice. They will do what they do, take the bows once it's done, and hopefully will be voted out of office in 2010. In many ways, the deal is already done, and they are just planning to have it fall when it can be "quickly forgotten news."