Green Chutes and Pink Farts

[Gene Frenkle]

Is there anything more fun than watching a liberal spend one minute talking about how we all need to band together to help those who can't help themselves when it comes to jobs and health care, and then the next minute explaining that they don't care what happens to others as long as it doesn't affect them directly?

Yes, that's exactly the same thing.

 

I'm pretty sure we're not talking about additional taxes for those who can't take care of themselves. Those who would be affected by this proposed tax (like you apparently) will probably struggle, fight the good fight and eventually make it through somehow, some way. Oh, the drama. How will you ever survive this oppressive regime?!

[GG]

Yes, that's exactly the same thing.

 

I'm pretty sure we're not talking about additional taxes for those who can't take care of themselves. Those who would be affected by this proposed tax (like you apparently) will probably struggle, fight the good fight and eventually make it through somehow, some way. Oh, the drama. How will you ever survive this oppressive regime?!

 

Or the flipside argument that the mountains of taxes and social spending that have been thrown at the problem areas over the last two generations have made a bigger dent in the lives of those you purport to help than the private sector.

 

Let's throw more money at it. That will solve it.

[Kelly the Dog]

Or the flipside argument that the mountains of taxes and social spending that have been thrown at the problem areas over the last two generations have made a bigger dent in the lives of those you purport to help than the private sector.

 

Let's throw more money at it. That will solve it.

Just curious, and serious about this, what do think would be the best route to take to fix the obvious health care problem short, mid, and long term? One that is realistic.

[Chef Jim]

More like...I can think of about 101 other issues to get all fired up about because they do affect me directly.

 

That's the problem with you damned hippies and your pro-establishment sentiment.

 

This will affect you. God you people are so stupid.

[Chef Jim]

Just curious, and serious about this, what do think would be the best route to take to fix the obvious health care problem short, mid, and long term? One that is realistic.

 

Start out by simplifying the health insurance industry. They cove too much, leaving them open to too much risk hence the high cost.

[IDBillzFan]

Yes, that's exactly the same thing.

 

I'm pretty sure we're not talking about additional taxes for those who can't take care of themselves. Those who would be affected by this proposed tax (like you apparently) will probably struggle, fight the good fight and eventually make it through somehow, some way. Oh, the drama. How will you ever survive this oppressive regime?!

There's that wonderful liberal talking point: it's just a drop in the bucket to these people, so why shouldn't they fork their money over?

 

Do me a favor: you make a list of all those people who "can't" take care of themselves and another list of all those people who "won't" take care of themselves, and we'll meet in the middle. When you give people freebies paid for by people who can take care of themselves, the list of people who "won't" take care of themselves is going to grow pretty dramatically.

 

Again, to paraphrase Dennis Miller: I have no problem helping the helpless. Just don't make me help the clueless.

[Kelly the Dog]

Start out by simplifying the health insurance industry. They cove too much, leaving them open to too much risk hence the high cost.

 

I agree. But how does the government do that?

[Chef Jim]

I agree. But how does the government do that?

 

Well start out by a overhaul of the system. My wife's insurance company has assumed the risk that while she was covered she may become pregnant and they would pay all or a good portion of that. There was zero percent chance they were going to pay that out so why should I pay for that risk. If I wanted penis reduction surgery they'd probably pay for most or all of that. Well that ain't happening either. It's kind of like I've felt about cable TV. Why the !@#$ am I paying for 28 stations broadcast in a language I don't speak. Why don't I just pay for what I plan on using. So I feel that health insurance should be the same. I don't buy dental insurance, I use my FSA because I don't need a lot of dental work, preventive maintenace goes a long way. There needs to be a basic insurance that covers the basics. Preventive care, prescriptions and emergency care. If I find myself with a critical illness (heart attack, stroke, cancer etc) I have access to my life insurance for that. They need to re-evaluate the insurance industry first not revamp the whole healtcare industry.

[GG]

Just curious, and serious about this, what do think would be the best route to take to fix the obvious health care problem short, mid, and long term? One that is realistic.

 

The first thing that I would do is to separate healthcare from an employer funded mandate. There is no reason why employers should be providing insurance to employees, and get better rates because they are a bigger "group" Most people don't know how much their insurance costs and there is very little incentive for them to be rational on the services if they're "free" A big part of the imbalance is that many people with insurance get more services than needed while uninsured get treated much later.

 

Separating insurance from employers also will allow policies to become portable, and not tie people to a job they hate only because they get health coverage. You can transition the scheme by forcing employers who provided healthcare to continue paying higher wages over a specified transition period - 3-5 years, and after that people are on their own. Employers can still provide medical coverage but it should not be tax free.

 

This would obviously mean a lot of people would lose gold plated coverage, unless they're willing to pay more for it. But it should be their choice to get coverage they need for their budget.

 

Over time, this system of self-rationing will force the incentives on the medical industry to offer services outside the emergency room for non-essential care. Some if is happening with specialized outpatient clinics, but more will be offered when people know the true cost of service.

 

The big battle will be for compulsory participation. If you are going to design it as a true insurance program, then you need to have a big group of healthy people paying in to cover the sick. Thus, you will need to mandate participation by anyone over 21. The premiums would obviously be lower for younger people. If states can mandate that you carry auto insurance and banks mandate that you carry homeowners insurance to qualify for a mortgage, you need to mandate healthcare to prevent a bigger hit to the taxpayers who pay taxes.

 

The problem I see with the house proposal is not that they are trying to solve a problem by bringing more people under the coverage umbrella, but that they're creating an behemoth that is not guaranteed to increase coverage, will likely curtail quality of service for most people and will destroy the budget.

 

There is no easy fix to healthcare, but it's easy to propose a plan that will soak only the "rich."

[Magox]

I agree. But how does the government do that?

To give a complete and detailed answer would be impractical. But in a nutshell, better communication between health care takers and the one's that provide coverage for their services would be a good place to start. When a doctor knows that a health insurance company is going to pay for the bill, then of course the natural instinct of greed kicks in and they are more likely to order and run tests that are unnecessary, therefore driving up the costs. I believe there has to be more stringent controls in this area.

 

 

Let me pose this question to you, what makes you think that the government will have success at running this effectively, when just about everything else they have tried to run has hardly ever worked out efficiently?

[Chef Jim]

To give a complete and detailed answer would be impractical. But in a nutshell, better communication between health care takers and the one's that provide coverage for their services would be a good place to start. When a doctor knows that a health insurance company is going to pay for the bill, then of course the natural instinct of greed kicks in and they are more likely to order and run tests that are unnecessary, therefore driving up the costs. I believe there has to be more stringent controls in this area.

 

 

Let me pose this question to you, what makes you think that the government will have success at running this effectively, when just about everything else they have tried to run has hardly ever worked out efficiently?

 

I pose the question to him this way. If every member of government was a Republican would he trust them to run the program successfully?

[IDBillzFan]

There is no easy fix to healthcare, but it's easy to propose a plan that will soak only the "rich."

I think your response was an excellent contribution. I would add one thing which, while it doesn't address the healthcare problem directly, still is vital to this discussion. There is absolutely NO need to have an August deadline. None. You can't take something that purportedly has deep, deep problems (in fact, so deep that Obama continues to blame healthcare for the economic mess) and expect an answer to be developed in months by people who wouldn't know a healtcare problem if it bit them on the ass. Make it a priority, but don't force the issue with an unreasonable deadline. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason this is being pushed is because this is the best chance to get away with more embarrassing spending based on unreliable forecasting. By the time we're into Q4 09 and unemployment is still rising and people realize the stimulus was forced on them for no valid reason, it will be impossible to get America to buy into trillions more in debt, even if they think that only the rich will pay for it. Same goes for cap-n-trade.

 

People are still very forgiving right now, despite the recent increase in buyers' remorse, so this is the time to push this idiocy through with a vengeance. It may be a reason, but it's not a very good one.

[Kelly the Dog]

I pose the question to him this way. If every member of government was a Republican would he trust them to run the program successfully?

If they wanted to supply the best care for the least cost, sure. We all know that isn't going to happen with either side but I don't think the left is smarter or better than the right on this stuff. I just don't think the right wants it.

[Magox]

I think your response was an excellent contribution. I would add one thing which, while it doesn't address the healthcare problem directly, still is vital to this discussion. There is absolutely NO need to have an August deadline. None. You can't take something that purportedly has deep, deep problems (in fact, so deep that Obama continues to blame healthcare for the economic mess) and expect an answer to be developed in months by people who wouldn't know a healtcare problem if it bit them on the ass. Make it a priority, but don't force the issue with an unreasonable deadline. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason this is being pushed is because this is the best chance to get away with more embarrassing spending based on unreliable forecasting. By the time we're into Q4 09 and unemployment is still rising and people realize the stimulus was forced on them for no valid reason, it will be impossible to get America to buy into trillions more in debt, even if they think that only the rich will pay for it. Same goes for cap-n-trade.

 

People are still very forgiving right now, despite the recent increase in buyers' remorse, so this is the time to push this idiocy through with a vengeance. It may be a reason, but it's not a very good one.

If you are part of the Obama administration then it makes perfect sense to have the August deadline. You know the old saying "strike while the iron is hot". The Obama administration knows that there is a direct correlation between approval ratings and the chances of getting their bills approved. While they have public support, they will try to jam every single bill that they can down our throats, but once the approval ratings start to drop, it will become much more difficult to do so.

[Wacka]

Two things would start to lower costs. First reduce the number of lawsuits. Having a baby costs so much because of malpractice insurance for OBs. Sometimes nature deals you a bad hand.

Disbarring Edwards would be a good start.

 

Next stop treating illegal aliens. Treat them for life threatening stuff if they come in. If it is not for a life threatening ailment, deport their asses. Most of the uninsured in CA are illegals.

[Gene Frenkle]

Or the flipside argument that the mountains of taxes and social spending that have been thrown at the problem areas over the last two generations have made a bigger dent in the lives of those you purport to help than the private sector.

 

Let's throw more money at it. That will solve it.

I'm not a proponent of unnecessary spending. If the numbers don't look good, cut the program and try something else. Rely on the facts. The country cannot continue to increase its debt as it has. We should be making every effort to decrease our national debt. I am not necessarily in favor of the spending that this administration is obviously doing, but realize that they have a plan they are trying to implement in an effort to turn this recession around. I don't think I can fairly judge this strategy, as I don't really understand the economics well enough to have an opinion on what the likely outcome of such a strategy might be.

[Kelly the Dog]

The first thing that I would do is to separate healthcare from an employer funded mandate. There is no reason why employers should be providing insurance to employees, and get better rates because they are a bigger "group" Most people don't know how much their insurance costs and there is very little incentive for them to be rational on the services if they're "free" A big part of the imbalance is that many people with insurance get more services than needed while uninsured get treated much later.

 

Separating insurance from employers also will allow policies to become portable, and not tie people to a job they hate only because they get health coverage. You can transition the scheme by forcing employers who provided healthcare to continue paying higher wages over a specified transition period - 3-5 years, and after that people are on their own. Employers can still provide medical coverage but it should not be tax free.

 

This would obviously mean a lot of people would lose gold plated coverage, unless they're willing to pay more for it. But it should be their choice to get coverage they need for their budget.

 

Over time, this system of self-rationing will force the incentives on the medical industry to offer services outside the emergency room for non-essential care. Some if is happening with specialized outpatient clinics, but more will be offered when people know the true cost of service.

 

The big battle will be for compulsory participation. If you are going to design it as a true insurance program, then you need to have a big group of healthy people paying in to cover the sick. Thus, you will need to mandate participation by anyone over 21. The premiums would obviously be lower for younger people. If states can mandate that you carry auto insurance and banks mandate that you carry homeowners insurance to qualify for a mortgage, you need to mandate healthcare to prevent a bigger hit to the taxpayers who pay taxes.

 

The problem I see with the house proposal is not that they are trying to solve a problem by bringing more people under the coverage umbrella, but that they're creating an behemoth that is not guaranteed to increase coverage, will likely curtail quality of service for most people and will destroy the budget.

 

There is no easy fix to healthcare, but it's easy to propose a plan that will soak only the "rich."

Some really good thoughts and ideas there. I like it a lot. The question remains, however, would it be possible to do this with either side?

[Kelly the Dog]

To give a complete and detailed answer would be impractical. But in a nutshell, better communication between health care takers and the one's that provide coverage for their services would be a good place to start. When a doctor knows that a health insurance company is going to pay for the bill, then of course the natural instinct of greed kicks in and they are more likely to order and run tests that are unnecessary, therefore driving up the costs. I believe there has to be more stringent controls in this area.

 

 

Let me pose this question to you, what makes you think that the government will have success at running this effectively, when just about everything else they have tried to run has hardly ever worked out efficiently?

 

There are tons of things the government controls that work out pretty well. Not perfect of course, and not necessarily the most cost effective possible, but they run well. Like, for example, keep lead paint out of your children's toys or other things that could harm them. Making sure planes don't crash and the airports work is astounding. Making sure the drugs you ingest don't kill you or harm you in other ways. The interstate highway system. The FBI and CIA and other security agencies are actually pretty great overall. Making sure the mail gets there in a couple days all across the country for 42 cents or whatever it is (people complain a lot about it but it's rather remarkable). There is a ton of stuff in the military, like the Special Ops and numerous other areas which are great. The quality of the water systems that come into people's homes. 911 and emergency systems, for the most part, are incredible.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think your response was an excellent contribution. I would add one thing which, while it doesn't address the healthcare problem directly, still is vital to this discussion. There is absolutely NO need to have an August deadline. None. You can't take something that purportedly has deep, deep problems (in fact, so deep that Obama continues to blame healthcare for the economic mess) and expect an answer to be developed in months by people who wouldn't know a healtcare problem if it bit them on the ass. Make it a priority, but don't force the issue with an unreasonable deadline. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason this is being pushed is because this is the best chance to get away with more embarrassing spending based on unreliable forecasting. By the time we're into Q4 09 and unemployment is still rising and people realize the stimulus was forced on them for no valid reason, it will be impossible to get America to buy into trillions more in debt, even if they think that only the rich will pay for it. Same goes for cap-n-trade.

 

People are still very forgiving right now, despite the recent increase in buyers' remorse, so this is the time to push this idiocy through with a vengeance. It may be a reason, but it's not a very good one.

The Senators and Congressmen working on this issue and bill have been working on it and intimately involved with it their entire political careers. The problem with putting a bill together in seven months is due to pettiness, greed, hypocrisy, campaign contributions and political douchebaggery from both sides, not the inability to draft a decent health care bill in a few months.

[IDBillzFan]

The Senators and Congressmen working on this issue and bill have been working on it and intimately involved with it their entire political careers. The problem with putting a bill together in seven months is due to pettiness, greed, hypocrisy, campaign contributions and political douchebaggery from both sides, not the inability to draft a decent health care bill in a few months.

So don't rush the process. When you force the development of a product, any product, into an unrealistic deadline, your end result is ultimately crap. Especially when you have a bunch of petty, greedy, hypocritical douchebags trying to make the product.

 

Take your time. Do it right. !@#$ the deadline. Anything else is irresponsible.