Alaska Darin Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Capitalism doesn't solve all problems and isn't appropriate for all forums- paying doctors per procedure is the incorrect way to go about things. I agree with Obama about using the Cleveland Clinic as a model- that won;t solve everything either- solutions don't just appear- you have to be patient and able to adjust to new problems that crop up. The health care system in the United States isn't capitalistic for anyone but the rich and it works just fine for them because they can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 The health care system in the United States isn't capitalistic for anyone but the rich and it works just fine for them because they can afford it. Hmmmm....Looking at my pay stub right now....I pay $15.96 every two weeks....Does that make me rich? I know people who's union dues are higher. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I agree. Can we remain at the staus quo? I hate to rhyme, but I don't know. That status is not quo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I haven't read up on it ages and your point about testing might be a valid one. However, I was under the impression the actual insurance for malpractice was a fairly low percentage. If testing is to become part of preventative health care (supposedly lowering costs), wouldn't that help keep the cost of the insurance down? At least then we would know why the tests are being performed (preventative vs precautionary). Just a thought. I don't know how much of a problem the malpractice rates actually are - both sides paint drastically different pictures. But to your point about testing. While preventive testing has been a mantra for some time, this reform rails against unneccessary testing and looks to a uniform (and presumably provenly optimized) standard of treatment. I suspect the threading of the needle will be this - the government body advising on standards lowers recommended testing in order to help generate the type of savings they need politically, under the guise of eliminating costly and inefficient testing. To keep the resulting rise in malpractice insurance in a litigious society in check, they need to step forward and make those recommendations mandatory so as to indemnify the medical establishment. Maybe the annual prostrate exam will become a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Interesting and I see what you are saying... I also forgot about the mal ins like you and Joe said. Also... Do workers in the health care industry get free medical? If anything they should have to pay into the system too! Dunno. I was refering only to the company subsidy of insurance (the remainder paid by the employee) which normal companies pay. It's relevant here because it is another few percentage points of an employees salary that people don't realize companies pay, and the current debate over making it taxable means that the compensation a company must pay for an employee goes up all that much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Shifitng to a high dedecutible / lower premium insurance plan will go a long way towards fixing the healthcare problem. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, that doesn't allow them to control and profit from a government run system. For those of you that are advocating for this type of reform please tell me how this will be any different than social security, medicaid or medicare? The federal governement is the most inefficiently run orgainzation in the country and they are going to improve efficiency and lower costs. When have they ever !@#$ing done that? I guess are getting what we deserve. Thank you to the idiots that voted for Obama because he is so "cool" without having the slightest idea what he truly stood for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 As someone who is in the health and life insurance business, this plan is not the most appetizing of thoughts. Does BO realize how many people in the insurance industry will likely be forced out of business if he passes this? That's a fairly large constituency. And this is a bad thing? The insurance industry makes the government look efficient and that is hard to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 No, it doesn't. There are options out there (mainly in the high-deductible arena) that are VERY affordable. The problem is, people want health insurance for the wrong reasons. Health insurance is to protect against major medical problems, not to cover everyday sneezes and sniffles. The "hair on fire" need of Obama and his criminal cronies Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid to push through a MAJOR drain on the Federal budget to fix a supposed "problem" is just perplexing. What does it matter if it gets done this month, a year from now or three years from now? The answer is, they know it won't pass if given time for review by the American people. We don't do socialism, even though the corrupt Washington establishment seems to be in love with it. And if you are unemployed and underemployed you can't even afford the high deductible, so what is your point, the current system still sucks, limits choices and denies coverage at the drop of a hat... please... you may have to wait and arrogant doctors may have to deal with government bureaucracy more, but at least you can get served. Our current system is a joke unless you are rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 They have to pay for malpractice ins. Another thing that the insurance cos a fking the medical establishment on. One of those things that needs to be controlled too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Hmmmm....Looking at my pay stub right now....I pay $15.96 every two weeks....Does that make me rich? I know people who's union dues are higher. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Way to see the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 And this is a bad thing? The insurance industry makes the government look efficient and that is hard to do. Would you rather they get paid for this inefficient work or would you rather they get paid unemployment? We are claiming on one hand that the recession is so serious that we need to extend welfare and unemployment benefits etc as well as create jobs for their own sake, independent of whether they are economically viable. We are claiming on the other hand that the Health Care System is inefficient and that by eliminating all of these paper-pushers we will realize much of the desired savings. And finally, we are claiming that both are so important that they must be done now, simultaneously, without time for public discussion. A slimmer insurance industry means layoffs and more people on the public dole... which ultimately means a larger Democratic constituancy, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 And this is a bad thing? The insurance industry makes the government look efficient and that is hard to do. Know much about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 And if you are unemployed and underemployed you can't even afford the high deductible, so what is your point You have a health savings account that allows you to contribute pre-tax dollars to go towards your deductible. The problem some see is that if they actually have to pay for their basic primary care (through the hsa) they will be unable to buy the latest iphone with a data plan, new car, flat screen television, etc. You can contribute the same amount to an HSA and cover a high deductable plan that only covers major medical needs (which is how insurance should work). It is a lot more affordable than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 You have a health savings account that allows you to contribute pre-tax dollars to go towards your deductible. The problem some see is that if they actually have to pay for their basic primary care (through the hsa) they will be unable to buy the latest iphone with a data plan, new car, flat screen television, etc. You can contribute the same amount to an HSA and cover a high deductable plan that only covers major medical needs (which is how insurance should work). It is a lot more affordable than you think. That is an interesting thought, the problem is that we already pay too much for the amount of service we get. I still think the crop insurance model or shared risk pools between private and public support with and cat coverage would limit the overall costs. HSAs are not necessarily a bad idea and I have used them to cover additional expenses for one of my children who has a chronic health issue, but.... the cost of maintenance health cost has gotten too high. I don't know much about the dying part, although since we all will share the burden, if we go down the route that you suggest, then everyone should be required to participate to share the burden. I agree from one of your earlier posts that government is not the full answer, but the current private system is broken and doing nothing should not be an option. Relying on only the private sector to solve this would be like deregulating the equity markets... oh wait we tried that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Know much about it? Yes I do, I used to be Fed, although I didn't cover health insurance. I recently have been navigating my way through the system on behalf of one of my sons who has a chronic neuro deal and it is not pleasant dealing with the insurance cos. It sure has limited our choices on where he gets treated, oh but private insurance is suppose to increase choices and options... yeh right... I hate cherry pickers in hockey and in business.... though in hockey at least I can knock them on their rear ends occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 The health care system in the United States isn't capitalistic for anyone but the rich and it works just fine for them because they can afford it. I guess that's why I have no problem with the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Yes I do, I used to be Fed, although I didn't cover health insurance. I recently have been navigating my way through the system on behalf of one of my sons who has a chronic neuro deal and it is not pleasant dealing with the insurance cos. It sure has limited our choices on where he gets treated, oh but private insurance is suppose to increase choices and options... yeh right... I hate cherry pickers in hockey and in business.... though in hockey at least I can knock them on their rear ends occasionally. Insurance companies need to make a profit, no? Can't insure sick people and make a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I don't know much about the dying part, although since we all will share the burden, if we go down the route that you suggest, then everyone should be required to participate to share the burden. Don't 43% of all Americans pay zero income tax? That doesn't seem like much sharing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Don't 43% of all Americans pay zero income tax? That doesn't seem like much sharing to me. That's because you're not a liberal. If you were a liberal, that would make perfect sense to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Know much about it? Ya. A older guy that works with me: Me: Hey [co-worker], what are you doing we have some work to do... We have to go out and do X, Y, and, Z. Co-worker: [staring blankly at a computer screen with internet connection] Me: [Looking over his shoulder and seeing that his health insurance company won't pay about 10k of his medical bills even though he pays over 200 bucks every two weeks and our employer picks up the other 80% of his premium.] Me: [to myself: I guess I am going to let him stay comatose and I will do the job myself.] True story. Happened two weeks ago when I was on first shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts