Facebook: No one should die because they cannot afford health care

So you think Medicare is a good thing right? I'm glad you're for government controlled health care!

 

Actually, I think Medicare is terrible. I'm forced to pay into something I never plan to use. People could better spend that money by putting it into a tax deductible health savings account, like a 401K for health care.

BTW, Medicare is bankrupt and its costs are spiraling out of control. So, your answer is "more, please."? At what point do you have enough evidence that government can't control costs that you realize they're not the solution to every problem?

 

Saying that your going to cover the costs of your programs by reducing waste & inefficiency in the current system is ridiculously unrealistic....

The sad part is, that compromise could be had here IMO....if both sides would start focusing on what they can agree on instead of what they cannot....

- no exclusions b\c of pre-existing conditons, or a technicality (acne example), or coverage dollar limits...this is just plain wrong
- government aid available for those who cannot afford healthcare costs, be that partial or whole
- mandatory inclusion of every american, but not illegals
- allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines...there are like 3,000 companies and yet in states like California only 5 or 6 are allowed to operate, more choice = more competition
- A health care exchange, where individuals can pool together for better costs (I am open to this idea, but I would like to hear more about how it works exactly)
- Tort reform, to help reduce frivolous lawsuits, defensive medicine and skyrocketing costs of insurance for doctors, which is passed on to customers

I also am not opposed to no charge for preventive medicine\check-ups, which has been mentioned, and IMO moving health insurance away from employer based to individual based should be the end goal, so when a person loses their job, they don't lose their health care as well...I don't see this happening though...

I do think there is waste\fraud in the current system that can and should be weeded out, but to suggest\rely on that to fund a health care plan that is excessively large and intrusive IMO is not the way to go...

 

Well then, you should be happy they are cutting the program back then. You can't eat your cake, then regurgitate it and have it too... OR CAN YOU?!

(Serious points below)

Are you suggesting that investing in the stock market, or some diverse fund, and paying a full bill when you need it (note most seniors needs some kind of medication in addition to doctor visits atleast every 6 months) would be cheaper than paying into a pool fund that you can get reduced rates?

Are you going to make it mandatory that everyone invest in their healthcare savings account? What do you do if someone is a moron and doesn't want to save money, but gets hurt? Those MRIs and CAT scans are expensive, so are the treatments for cancer. I don't think I could save up enough for that by the time I'm 65. Do the rich get better healthcare because they've been able to save more in their fund?

 

It's like you're channeling Obama's Speech from last night!

 

What if someone doesn't save to pay their mortgage? Their cable bill? Their electrical bill? Sorry, but if you want a nanny state, then you're welcome to it. I prefer to control my own life.

There's nothing wrong with a free private insurance and re-insurance market. In fact, it would be cheaper for everyone. Unfortunately, we've decided to attach health care to employment rather than making it tax deductible for the individual.

 

If only he meant what he said. He's a master of double speak. My favorite tactic is when he acknowledges a problem or shortcoming with his approach, and then presents a policy prescription that completely blows it off. He did it last night with tort reform. It's a really effective tactic. If you're not listening closely, you actually believe that he has an open mind.

 

The problem I have with your analogy here, is that these bills are to be expected to an exact amount. How can one save up for something you don't know how much it costs, example being cancer treatment?

"free private insurance" i'm confused what you mean by free here? do you mean like free 'private insurance and re-insurance' market, as in a specific free market?

Tax deductible health insurance would be nice, I think both sides would like that. But it wouldn't help keep costs and coverage loss down.

 

I thought he said he wanted tort reform? He didn't seem to give too many specific solutions, so perhaps he didn't have an exact answer. But if what you say is true, that is kind of sleazy.

 

That's what insurance and health savings accounts are for. We don't know how much it will cost to fix your house or your car, but we don't ask for certainty in those areas. Why health care?

My bad. It was awkward wording. I meant a free and unfettered market for private insurance and re-insurance. We hear about how we need more competition and that's why the government needs to step in and play a role. How about they step out of the way and allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and sell any kind of insurance they want? It seems to me that's the easiest and most effective way to insert competition into the system.

Health care costs are negotiable. If you pay cash for a service, you get a steep discount. No one cares about the cost now because insurance pays it. Increasing the transparency of the costs by writing a check from your account focuses both the patient and the hospital on the cost of services.

 

The three things you listed were mortgage, cable bill, and electrical bill. I addressed those, not house or auto insurance.

 

The concept remains the same. BTW, do you really know what your cable bill is going to be? Mine seems to change monthly.

 

I cringe to get in a political debate with people so set on one side or another that they vote the party line, so I'm going to try and ask a non-partisan question I do not know the answer to...

What would cost more:
a) The public paying for the people who don't have insurance
b) The public paying for all the people that go to the ER for simple needs (ex: they have a cold) because they know they can't be denied

I would guess A would be more expensive, but I wonder if there would be a trickle down affect that would make B a better option. I'd love for response to provide data to back up their opinion.

 

For the past few weeks I've been working on my own proposal for how I would fix health care, because I think identifying problems is worthless without offering solutions. If I finish it, I'll post it in here and allow posters to tear it to shreds.

 

I wish that is what he was proposing....

But he is still pushing a public option, co-op or a trigger...

He mentioned tort reform, but referenced a sample test program...I won't believe him until I see tort reform in a bill...

I don't recall him pushing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines...I heard him mention it as a reason for what is currently wrong, but I didn't see him push to add it to legislation, nor is it in there now....

I think the health care exchange idea is interesting, but as always "the devil is in the details"...I'd like to see more on just how that would work....

Like I said, I think there is middle ground and compromise to be had here, but so far as I have seen it is chiefly Democrats (and some Republicans) who are being obstinate, offering bi-partisanship to only those who agree to sign off on everything that the liberal Democrats want in the bill....No wonder Republicans are unanimously opposed...

Drop the public option\co-op\trigger and start adding in some of the ideas championed mainly by Republicans (tort reform and competition across state lines) and I bet you could get a bi-partisan bill.....

and wouldn't that be good for all americans?

 

I wish it were that easy. There is too much at stake here. I saw on CNN yesterday that there are 6 lobyist for every congressman/representative JUST for health care.

 

What bugs you so greatly about a co-op? It wouldn't be run by the government. If competition is such a great thing why be scared of some additional non-governmental competition? As for a trigger, I think it's a great idea. If private enterprise is so positive they can make a difference without government intervention then let's put them to the test and say prove it or lose it. Health care should never have been a for-profit enterprise to begin with.

Obama's administration has already indicated in various manners that dissolving the public option is not a deal breaker. This supposedly was the Holy Grail - the item that the Republicans were dug in with their heels about and willing to fight to the death.
He's opened the door to tort reform (again, letting Congress hash out the details..which is their job) chained to the health reform.
His envoys have nixed the idea of the end-of-life counseling.
He's stated repeatedly that he wants the program to pay for itself.

He's held the door openly repeatedly for Republicans and all they want to do is stall and hedge and deny. Grassley can't even think for himself, he has to have a majority of the minority to make an opinion.

I'm just not sure what else he would have to "give" for Republicans to join on board. Eventually it gets to the point where you essentially have a Republican bill. I believe the majority should try to work with the minority, unlike Republicans of recently passed, but what else do they need to do?

 

That it is a for-profit industry is the reason we have new and improving pharmaceuticals and cutting edge medical technology.

Profits drive innovation

 

Profit also drove the bank collapses

 

Profits drive innovation because they drive excuses to be made for people to take medicines they don't need, endure exams, tests, and procedures they don't need and for prescription drugs to be sold at absurdly high prices when compared to the rest of the world. Profits also dictate what type of research is done for these innovations and which fields they will address - usually only covering diseases or maladies widespread enough to warrant return on investment. Have a problem that isn't experienced by a widespread percentage of the population? Good luck. Profits also extricate morals and ethics from a field that should be bound by one of the highest set of ethics.


Profits also require that you "eliminate expenses". I'll let each person determine exactly how that is accomplished in the world of health care.