Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 5:28:01 PM   
faerytattoodgirl


Posts: 5824
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Flight to the Moon ?



Don't forget, there are many, some CM posters, who don't believe the moon landing ever occurred!


They also claim that aliens never landed and it was some weather balloon in roswell.   Aliens exist! look at richard simmons!

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 5:29:20 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Housing and Urban Development HUD, I don't even know what they do!
There's plenty of room for spending cuts in the govt.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 5:40:56 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Something else occurs to me  re. the problem of the success or otherwise of govnt. run schemes. As I understand it in the US by and large private enterprise solutions are the preferred option.

When those in govt. see that such solutions are not forthcoming then the necessary managerial/financial arrangements are initiated by the govnt  and  the options put out to tender to private enterprise.
When successful, say in the building of fighter jets, aircraft carriers, highway systems etc all of the credit in the public mind at least  goes only to one side and the govnt contribution remains anonymous.

With regard to National Health the correct comparison is not perfection, not what is available to the wealthiest 20% but how health benefits spread out across the nation as a whole.
IMO the UK system leaves the US system standing when judged like this.

Just out of interest how do privately run publicly regulated utility systems perform in the US ?
ie gas.electricity.

Another point: what was described as "a great wasteland" ? Privately run US broadcasting.
For all its faults in current affairs broadcasting the BBC takes some beating when judged on its total output.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 1/2/2008 5:48:26 PM >

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 5:54:43 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Actually NASA had plenty of neat stuff to do- just has had some awful leadership in both the agency and in the gov't.  I think their total budget is around $17B/yr- a number which pales in comparison with spending in Iraq.

What happened to NASA?  Well, the space truck didn't work out as brilliantly as hoped, but NASA used to be able to rebound from the expected failures when you're living on the edge.  The International Space Station (ISS) is yet another example of how Uncle Sam is not to be trusted- get other countries on board to design modules and build them- and gee- let's retire the Space truck in 2010 although we don't have any replacement in sight- except maybe back to stupid chemical booster rockets- which is regression if there ever was one.  So countries like Italy and Japan are feeling pretty screwed-we decided to scale back our contribution and that means that the crew up there got cut from 5 to three.  But since it takes 2 guys working pretty much full time to keep everything together, that doesn't leave a lot of manpower to do science- which was the idea anyway.

Of course- if you think that global warming doesn't exist and you don't want to believe any evidence to the contrary- then the earth observation satellites that NASA and NOAA put up don't hold much appeal- although they've also dramatically improved hurricane prediction.

This country used to be the leader in doing high energy physics research- but when Reagan cut the Super Collider in Texas- that threw away the US's lead and left a lot of other countries pissed at us, because they'd contributed as well and their investment got thrown away.  Basically, we're a crappy partner to do anything long term with- we don't keep to our agreements.  I don't have any stats to back this up with- but I have a sneaking suspicion that the situation is aggravated by neo con administrations.

Sam

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 6:16:20 PM   
camille65


Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline 		dcnovice and samboct I want to thank you both for what you wrote. It is too easy, and too common IMO to list all the bad.It felt good to read the positives even though they may not have been perfect.Thanks.

_____________________________


~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).




(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 6:24:49 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks, Camille. I try to avoid the dual traps of thinking that government can do everything and that it can do nothing. Wiser, imho, to figure out which tasks are best done by which sector, private or public. It's also important, I think, to remember that the public and private sectors can work together, as in the case of NASA.

Public-private partnership might also be something to consider in the area of health care. One way to cover the uninsured, for example, might be for the government to purchase group policies within the existing insurance structure.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to camille65)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 7:46:52 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		I'll echo DC's sentiments (AGAIN!- we often seem to be on at least similar wavelengths) and say de nada.

Although there are constant claims that the US lags in math and science, I wonder if history isn't fairing even worse- because we seem to be repeating an awful lot of the mistakes that were made over a century ago.

When anybody trots out the idea that the US gov't stifles innovation- a great example to use is Texas.  (At least there's some good that can come out of that place- it's got a lot to make up for.)  Back in the 1900s- there was an incredible difference between Mexico and Texas.  Mexico was relatively unchanged over the centuries- misery, poverty, and squalor.  Texas was going great guns- towns were being built, businesses were being built etc.  Yet it was the same land that was in Mexico- arid, lots of rock and sun.  The difference was that the people in Texas knew that they could build something that would be their own, and the people in Mexico worked for a landed gentry that was happy with the status quo.  Well, the people that want to toss out the accomplishments of our gov't over the centuries are interested in this type of society- they're on top, and they want to stay there.  It's why a lot of people are really angry with the neocons- they haven't been able to build anything, they've only been able to tear down what others have built.  We're spending all our money on maintaining the status quo rather than developing new technology.

The one good thing about history is that maybe it'll keep repeating itself- we're on a downward swing now, but upward swings may follow.  We're overdue.... maybe we'll get some people in this country to demand better leaders than what we've had recently. 


Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 1/2/2008 7:53:59 PM >

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 11:47:10 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Name any government program that does work.



A total bullshit question, Merc. Pure friggin' obfuscation.

How about you name one program that 100% does NOT work!

All government programs work. Some work better than others.

Society is a "government" program. Whenever we band together to share risks and benefits, whenever we make collective decisions about conduct, standards, needs, we are creating a "government" program. What the fuck is wrong with that? We are social beings - it's how we do things - it's our greatness as a species. We share. Yes we steal a lot too but we share just enough more that the species moves forward and our achievements accumulate - they don't die with each solitary jerk-off, crouching in his personal hole in the ground.

Do you think you'd be one-one-hundredth the person you are today if each and every human on earth was a solitary predator? This "do it on your own" crap can only be crowed from the convenient perch of a person who can look down his nose at the notion of collective effort, because he has the advantage of millennia of collective effort piled at his feet on which to stand. The very fact your opinion is being heard right now is because of collective effort (Al Gore might have invented the internet but he almost certainly had some help).

How many barns can one man build in a day? How long would it take twenty men to each build their own twenty barns, without help? And how long would it take them to achieve the same result by helping each other? A fuck of a lot less time and with way better fucking results. Why is that so hard to remember and understand?

I'll say it again - national healthcare not only can work it DOES work. That's not an opinion it is a fact.

Sure the USA has the best cutting edge medical care - the USA has the best cutting edge everything! Who can afford it? The 1%.

Canada has slightly less cutting edge healthcare but who can afford it? Everyone!

Yay!


Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/2/2008 11:58:28 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		Yup, the usual right-wingers standing on the shoulders of giants and ranting about personal achievement and rugged individualism. The billionaire wannabes that are sure it's gonna happen for them next year. Horatio Alger type heroes forever looking forward to a future that never arrives and voting against their own best interests in the meanwhile.

So boring.



Thanks, Zensee - as usual. You are one of the few sane voices on here.

< Message edited by SugarMyChurro -- 1/3/2008 12:04:30 AM >

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 12:12:16 AM   
UtopianRanger


Posts: 3251
Status: offline
quote:



Yup, the usual right-wingers standing on the shoulders of giants and ranting about personal achievement and rugged individualism. The billionaire wannabes that are sure it's gonna happen for them next year. Horatio Alger type heroes forever looking forward to a future that never arrives and voting against their own best interests in the meanwhile.



CG.....

I dunno what's going on with you, but this dog and pony show is over ---You've won....you just can't see it yet. Nationalized healthcare or a '' single payer'' system is on the horizon, my friend. I'd give it at the most seven years.....but prolly sooner--- It's in the bones....I can feel it coming.




- R




_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton


(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 12:21:26 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		The health insurance industry is like the RIAA - their business model is *SO* last century and on the way out, of course. But they are going to grease every hand that sticks out in D.C. and try very much to have their way for as long as they can anyway. And even if the hands that stick out in D.C. ruin and bankrupt the states, they can always retire on that money they hid away offshore to beautiful places like the United Arab Emirates. Very private skyscraper tyrannies available for a price.

Hell, I'd buy in if I could!

Nothing says retirement like forced servitude, camel races and falconry...

(in reply to UtopianRanger)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 12:47:25 AM   
Suzykeu


Posts: 115
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline 		Well, federal programs have been shown in studies to spend money more efficciently than most private companies, even if it may fund more programs than are really nessicary. And their ability to centralize and dissiminate information has been proven, which is difficult for bunches of private companies. So a national health care system could work, and might be cheaper overall, depending on how it is handled.

It'd also get more people to go to doctors more often, if we can also increase the number of doctors, and that'd be good. Keeps the transmittable desieses down, increases economic productivity, lower child mortality and less malnutrition, etc.

Finding a way to make a system work seems more productive than wondering if it'd be good for us.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 4:10:00 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Another major major (sic) govnt. financed enterprise that has not been mentioned is the building of the Panama Canal. A truly super collossal achievment.

The problem with the principle of govnt. controlled organisations is that they become bloated due to lack of market discipline.
A problem with large  free enterprise organisations is that the upper echelon executives become greedy and avaricious and start manoeuvering for their own financial advantage.

The solution in both cases is to setup govnt. financed regulatory bodies with  powers to intervene and staffed by hard nosed bastards like me. lol.

CEO's you will go to prison for trying to manipulate stock prices/pension arrangements and your own salary and lying on the balance sheets.
National Health service manager, you are sacked because you are superfluous.
National Health service doctor, NO you cant have that latest diagnostic machine because it is not cost effective and questions of your prestige are irrelevent.
Also when employed/trained housed at public expense you will treat the general public first.
If you wish to do otherwise piss off to America.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 1/3/2008 4:18:39 AM >

(in reply to Suzykeu)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 6:25:30 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Let me throw out a few ideas on a workable health care system.

1)  Eliminate the word insurance.  Insurance is for catastrophes, not paying foreseeable bills.  This also eliminates a large chunk of executives, paper pushers etc, none of whom contribute to the delivery of medical care.  Like education, our taxes will pay for a basic level of medical care that everyone recieves.  Want more- you're free to pay for it- same as education.  Will this cost more money?  Hardly- if medical costs fall, then the increase in taxes will be more than offset by the elimination of medical insurance payments.  Take your pick- an increase in taxes of $2k to save $5k in medical insurance premiums?  I suspect most people would make that trade in a heartbeat- I sure would. 
2)  Eliminate medical malpractice- which also falls under step 1.  With malpractice insurance now up to what- 30% or more of the expense of running the office- that's a quick savings.  It'll also eliminate a lot of unnecessary tests, because doctors will be able to practice good medicine, rather than defensive medicine.  I'd expect that medical costs would fall to 1/3rd of present levels with the elimination of malpractice.
3)  Malpractice arose because patients were angry that their doctors could make mistakes with impunity.  The start of the whole spiral should be laid at the door of the AMA.  By allowing doctors to not testify against each other and rubber stamping medical review boards actions which rarely resulted in a doc losing his license (back then it was likely a he- these days its nearly as likely a she) the public grew not to trust doctors.  It's the old problem of the fox guarding the henhouse.  Use a review board made up of outsiders to see that doctors can lose their license for egregious errors such as leaving a scalpel in a patient or operating drunk- and there is no need for malpractice.  If you're worried about it- there's an insurance industry out there that will be happy to write you a policy to cover damages from medical mistakes- but you get to pick up the tab.  No more lottery lawsuit payouts.
4)  Allow states to band together to recieve some federal support for major hospital facilities, similar to educational facilities.  Don't try to centralize medical care decisions, let individual states pick what will work best in their regions.  Let's face it, facilities requirements in South Dakota, with a limited, dispersed population are very different than around NYC or other metropolitan regions.  This will probably need tweaking.
5)  Medical records should be digitized and handed to individuals without allowing any access to the federal gov't unless specifically signed over by either parent or individual.  Doctors need to maintain patient confidentiality with the exception of infectious diseases.  The way AIDS was handled initially was a terrible mistake, it allowed the disease to get a much larger foothold than it should have.
6)  Eliminate the ability of consumers to sue pharma companies.  Having FDA approval should provide shielding- it costs so damn much to get.  Increase the resources of the FDA to allow monitoring of drugs once being prescribed.  Rewrite the Pure Food and Drug Act to remove the language of "safe and effective"- any drug that's effective is by definition, also somewhat hazardous.  Life involves risk-deal with it.

Industries that are threatened or wiped out by these changes-

Legal industry- getting rid of medical malpractice claims will eliminate a bunch of jobs here.
Insurance industry-having the gov't provide health care will eliminate employer held policies.  There will be opportunities, but they will be smaller and more niche.
Big pharma- the handwritings been on the wall for these companies for decades.  Since they are largely sales and marketing firms at this point, science based drug needs will eliminate a lot of their competitive advantage over smaller firms.  We should see the development of more new personalized drugs tailored for smaller populations- but the FDA is going to have to change here too.

Will we see higher taxes?  Yup, but overall, the hit to our pocketbook should be smaller, by eliminating lots of waste and corruption that has nothing to do with medical care.

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 1/3/2008 6:32:01 AM >

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 7:37:40 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Such a massive show of support for the government. This exhibition of patriotism is wonderful. Combined with all the head bobbers who can't wait to give more into the pit of government mismanagement and corruption; seeking to create more government bureaucracy. It shows how propaganda does work. Never thought there was so many conservatives posting here who trust the status quo government and look for more nanny care giving, paying more and more for the privilege. Why not turn over 100% of your income and be grateful for anything they give you? "Give you" that's a joke in itself. Is this the target audience for those spam emails I get every day and discard telling me I've 'won' a "FREE" $500 Target gift card?

It is easy to see why there is no change. People don't want it. Eventually they'd rather have government housing, government food, government health care. Self responsibility and determination seems to have been weened out of an entire generation raised on entitlements and wealth re-distribution programs. 

Look around you at who is being given as a choice to lead you. Laugh at the memory of President Bush not knowing about a bar-scan at a grocery store; do you think any of the current batch of candidates ever stopped at the store on his way home form work for a loaf of bread? You think any of them even drive home, or bought a gallon of gas? The reason these people don't feel bad about increasing the income tax is that regular income represents very little of their 'wealth'.

Go back to the OP. This isn't an Onion story. "Heal Yourself" is the policy in the UK. The answer is not to follow that model. The problem is that any model created here has to consider the reality of here. Should you convince the AMA lobby to support some type of coverage, does anyone believe that the legal industry would abdicate any of their power? No comparison to any existing health program can be made because no other nation in the world has lawyers dictating policy. There would be no need for health care reform if law suits were taken out of the equation. With Senator Edwards considered a viable candidate, obviously no one wants to give up the potential of winning the law suit lottery.

I'm happy that you all believe that government is the solution for all your problems. Anyone who says that people's confidence in government is waning should refer to this thread. Although its sad to see that people have so little faith in their own ability that they see a benevolent government as their only path to improve their lives. Maybe that was the goal of public education, leaving no child left behind to value self determination? If that the goal, similar the NASA's goal of the moon, the 1/2 Trillion spent every year in the US education system produced the desired result.

Hey, I'm on my last laps and have taken care of myself and my household. I have no worries about my future because I don't have any reliance on government providing any influence, except of course the collecting of my taxes. I appreciate history. I know of many people who trusted and relied on SS as their retirement who at 70 are wearing a vest and handing out carts at Target. The OP's reference to a "Heal Yourself" program in the UK may be isolated, but based on history and current events; I wouldn't be comfortable relying on the government for my health.

Someone hit upon an interesting notion. It was something to the effect that insurance was designed to be a stop gap for a catastrophic event. The cost of simliar health coverage would be about $100/month for the average US citizen.









AM Best Rating: A
Plan Type
Deductible
Coinsurance
Office Visit

PPO
$5,000
30%
You pay 30% after deductible

$101.00 Monthly Cost







 
My "solution"? Mandatory insurance coverage paid by the employer, open enrollment for dependents. Within a group policy the cost would be less. The increase pool will reduce the claims/premium ratio and no additional government bureaucracy would be required. Cost would be passed on to the consumer. It would be less than any tax supported government bureaucracy and competition would keep cost reasonable. It doesn't even require elimination of lawyers and it keeps you in the game of law suit lottery. Of course fit the socialist agenda. It doesn't re-distribute wealth and it does put some of the financial responsibility on the user, but it keeps the government out of nanny care giving business.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 8:21:38 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Combined with all the head bobbers who can't wait to give more into the pit of government mismanagement and corruption; seeking to create more government bureaucracy."

When in doubt- follow the money.  The current insurance industry deals with paying out for health care as a "loss" and then attempts to ration care as a cost savings measure- which frequently winds up backfiring as people get sicker.  Or they become destitute and lose all accumulated wealth due to an illness.

Gov'ts mandate with health care- well a dead voter doesn't vote, so we better keep them happy and alive.  Spend what it takes.  At least the government has a reason to provide health care- health insurance companies don't.  Plus, the government is going to be more interested in keeping people alive regardless of how fat their wallet is, corporations don't.  No wallet- no reason to live.

Merc- seems like you haven't been paying attention to current events.  Deregulation and gutting the watchdog agencies have lead to a mortgage crisis which will potentially cost the taxpayer trillions.  This is in a business where actually selling something to the consumer makes sense for growth and it's lead to a debacle- similar to most unregulated capitalist industries.  And I'm surprised that nobody brought up the similarity to the S +L scandal of the 80s, because this sure looks like a replay.  There is a world of difference in between expecting the government to provide a product, and expecting the government to keep the playing field level.  The choice is not between private enterprise and government provision- there is a third choice of intelligent government regulation which allows private enterprise to blossom- not to be strangled at birth by predatory capitalism.   Seems like you've lost sight of that option in your rabid appraisal that everything the government does is either corrupt or incompetent.  Remember- it's a democracy- we are the government- which means that if things are corrupt- it's up to us to fix it.  (note- I'm a good Jewboy scientist- of course I'm a liberal, not a conservative.)  Your idea of everyone for himself- and oh yeah, you're already in your own liferaft makes me less inclined to believe that you have any other interests other than your own occupying your thoughts.

You threw out the idea of catastrophic coverage for $1200/yr.  Well, let's see- I'll bet that at least one of the posters on this thread would be turned down for it due to preexisting conditions.  And let's say you get a blood disorder that requires a $1M stay at Fred Hutchison in Seattle.  So that 30% deductible comes to $300k.  Gee, that sounds like bankruptcy or losing a house for most of us.  Great insurance there.  Got any more solutions as good as that one?  How about don't get sick, because I don't want to pay for it?

The lawsuit lottery?  Well, I agree that if we got rid of that, we might have a fighting prayer at reining in health care costs- which don't need to be held even, they need to decrease.  But why does it sound like the folks that brought you the lower taxes, work hard and you'll get ahead (yeah- right- Horatio Alger was either an imbecile, blind, or a lying SOB- as was Reagan) mantra are the same ones pushing this nonsense?  Plus, I suspect that if you offered the deal of having an independent review board of doctors actions instead of malpractice- the AMA would jump at it now.

Sam

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 9:38:47 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Merc- seems like you haven't been paying attention to current events.  Deregulation and gutting the watchdog agencies have lead to a mortgage crisis which will potentially cost the taxpayer trillions. 


Wrong, greed and consumer ignorance caused the problem. It will only "cost the taxpayer trillions" if the government decides to bail out the fools who bought into a teaser rate. The Banks? Well, check your post Xmas bills. Late fees and penalties for late payment are up 30%. Institutions who initiated the programs should be allowed to fail, along with those investors foolish enough to invest in a Ponzi scheme. Or are you advocating for a government that protects fools from failure?

quote:

Seems like you've lost sight of that option in your rabid appraisal that everything the government does is either corrupt or incompetent.  Remember- it's a democracy- we are the government- which means that if things are corrupt- it's up to us to fix it.
I don't think all government as "corrupt or incompetent". I observe first hand though that every government bureaucracy created has never died, never reduced tax dollars spent, never solved the problem they were set up to serve, never became self sustaining. My sight is clear and focused on results. Education is now a Cabinet level bureaucracy which trickled down the consideration of 'Ebonics' as an acceptable language. That's creating a worker pool only suited for pool cleaning...maybe.

What is your trust and assumption of government being a solution based upon?

quote:

Well, let's see- I'll bet that at least one of the posters on this thread would be turned down for it due to preexisting conditions. 
Read what I said again. Perhaps it wasn't clear. Mandatory coverage for employees with an open enrollment would preclude the current preexisting condition restriction. With every worker and their family covered, the risk is spread out. The premium to claim ratio may even go down. Consider that the majority of uncovered workers are at the low end of the age spectrum and the vast majority do not have $1 Million medical issues. It only takes a 1,000 no claims at the rate I quoted, which BTW was for a 41 year old, to pay for the $1 Million claim.

Something I didn't include previously is that I would make the employer initiated insurance to be non impacting to the employee. Meaning that a minimum wage employee would still make their minimum wage, but have insurance coverage, paid by the employer.

Here's a bonus for those believing the "fat-cat" business owners always have the upper hand. I know of no business owner who has health coverage through the business he owns who has a different insurance than his employees. If their is any fear of that changing, mandate that all employees of the company are covered by the same insurance company and policy. When it becomes not only a line item in the budget but a factor in the owner's and his family's health; all aspects of the coverage offered will be scrutinized. From top to bottom, there would be no distinction in the availability and/or quality of coverage.

On a personal note, I have this program in place now for my company. My experience with the insurance company has me initiating a change of company when its renewed. I have a waiting list of health companies wanting to make me a proposal. It's never a good idea to put government in place of choice and competition.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 9:48:34 AM   
camille65


Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline 		What about those people who are unemployed and do not qualify for public aid? Wait, under your concept there would be no public aid. So okay, what about those that are unemployed?Not every person can work. I worked full time for 10 years then had to go part time and eventually lost my job because I could not work. I still cannot work and I do not qualify for any help. So the people like me should just suck it up or give up?In Michigan alone the employment rate is awful. I'm trying to move to a place that is warmer so I can function more, maybe even hold down a part time job again. But again, in MI the housing market is one of the worst in the nation. I would be ecstatic to have some of my medication costs cut or assisted. Heh at the rate things are going I will literally be out of money by April. Yeah I may be ranting and yeah I may be viewing this from a personal view but I know damn well I'm not the only person struggling through this crap. If I had been a breeder I could get help but oh no, I decided not to burden the world with more humans. Maybe that was a mistake, maybe I still have time to become a welfare-momma? Is that the solution? Become more of a burden to receive a minimum of assistance?

_____________________________


~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).




(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 10:32:38 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Wrong, greed and consumer ignorance caused the problem. It will only "cost the taxpayer trillions" if the government decides to bail out the fools who bought into a teaser rate. The Banks? Well, check your post Xmas bills. Late fees and penalties for late payment are up 30%. Institutions who initiated the programs should be allowed to fail, along with those investors foolish enough to invest in a Ponzi scheme. Or are you advocating for a government that protects fools from failure? "

Well, I agree with you that the cause of the problem was unchecked greed and lack of oversight of the markets.  Since the Federal Government does provide support to the banking industry through organizations such as the FDIC, and Fannie Mae, the federal government has an oversight role to play.  That it's been abdicated doesn't surprise me one whit- remember their response to Katrina?  Why should this be any different?  Consumer ignorance?  Umm, so why are the most sophisticated mortgage products targeted for those at the low end of the housing market?  Or is this blame the consumer for purchasing sawdust instead of bread?  Bear in mind that the idea that home ownership was a good thing was given the blessing of no less a capitalist than Alan Greenspan, so there's certainly been a push from government sources to encourage people to buy housing. 

Are you advocating letting banks fail?  Because the people that cooked up this Ponzi scheme are certain that they won't be prosecuted, won't be caught, and the taxpayer is going to have to do a bailout- these are Bush's good buddies after all. They're certainly correct on the last part- like the S + L scheme- there's really no alternative to a taxpayer bailout here- the alternative is a collapse of the financial markets.  So in principle I agree with you- bailing out failing companies is generally a bad idea, in this case, the alternative is worse.

"I know of no business owner who has health coverage through the business he owns who has a different insurance than his employees."

Gee, so the people that run Wal-Mart have the same health insurance as the rest of the folks?  This is so off the wall that its funny.

I love how you come up with the idea that capitalism should be unfettered, but you're happy dictating how insurance companies covering health have to operate.  News flash- they've evolved those systems to make money.  If you restrict those systems and make demands that health care coverage be portable- odds, are they're going to charge more for it.  And anyone whose actually dealt with those companies when they want to deny a claim will tell you that its a frustrating, arduous process that's based more on the idea of wearing down the consumer, and far less on actually paying what they agreed to.  It's also pretty obvious that there is no real competition in the industry.  Like the cell phone industry, this is another example of how government regulation has failed to do its job.

Sam

(in reply to camille65)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare - 1/3/2008 10:47:09 AM   
faerytattoodgirl


Posts: 5824
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

What about those people who are unemployed and do not qualify for public aid? Wait, under your concept there would be no public aid. So okay, what about those that are unemployed?


We who are disabled would be left out in the cold, homeless due to hospital bills, dr bills and medication.  This is why i can not and will not live in usa.
I am happily living in canada with good income on disability.  its true i have to share place to live...but am not on the street like i would be in usa.  probably would die in a week with my heart condition in the streets of usa.  its called "tetralogy of falot" rather common condition now where when i was diagnosed it wasnt so common.  a congenital disease.

(in reply to camille65)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Wonderful World Of Government Healthcare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109