RE: Can it really be simple?

RE: Can it really be simple? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 7:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I expect we will get, as has been said for years, the efficiency of the Post Office with the compassion of the IRS. That's a good line. [:)] Does it, though, accord with how folks have experienced Medicare over the past few decades? It seemed this summer that folks were doggedly, even ferociously, protective of it. It's old, DC. Johnny Carson might have used that line in a Tonight Show monologue. The people who are so protective of Medicare, I think, are the ones who would have worse or nothing without it. File me with the 89% of Americans who are satisfied with their health insurance.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 7:24:04 PM)
quote: 2) Amend the current Medicare laws to include everyone that has a Social Security number, exceptions being for new borns. Why newborns? The problem here isn't with your plan, but with the political landscape. Governors are concerned that they will be saddled with additional mandates when their states are already in fiscal trouble. And conservatives adamantly oppose it. Folks are still going to have to own up to the reality of emergency room treatment costs for anyone left over.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 7:27:43 PM)
quote: File me with the 89% of Americans who are satisfied with their health insurance. So am I. That's in large part because we are shielded from the true cost of it. The health care system, however, is spirally out of control. Including yours and mine, as costs continue to climb. Not to mention the risk of getting dropped over some technicality or another just when we need it. Or the cost of losing a job including the loss of insurance.

Rule -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 7:37:45 PM)
I am chronically ill with herpes and its many complications. (At the moment some swollen gums.) Starting when I stopped working, first day of 2004, I quit all medical and dental insurance. I was quite prepared to die in a gutter, or go for a swim to Iceland if necessary. I was doing fine! Then after two years the government made medical insurance obligatory! It is costing me 900 euro's per year that do not buy me anything. Worse: I know that these 900 euro's by supporting the system, are causing many people to be afflicted by iatrogenic diseases, causing the cost of care to spiral out of control, and killing people that might have lived longer and have better quality of life if they had never seen a physician.

Arpig -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 9:21:22 PM)
Sure thing Rule, whatever you say.[8\|]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 9:21:50 PM)
Newborns do not have a Social Security Card yet. There would be no one left over, except those that do not have Social Security cards. There could be special temp cards created for those with Visas. You are correct the problem is the political landscape, and looking at the simplicity in solving some of these symptoms, should show us that we also need to take care of the real problem. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: 2) Amend the current Medicare laws to include everyone that has a Social Security number, exceptions being for new borns. Why newborns? The problem here isn't with your plan, but with the political landscape. Governors are concerned that they will be saddled with additional mandates when their states are already in fiscal trouble. And conservatives adamantly oppose it. Folks are still going to have to own up to the reality of emergency room treatment costs for anyone left over.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 9:23:30 PM)
Part of that real problem, though, is that the governors have a good point.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/16/2009 9:27:12 PM)
Didn't know states paid for any of the Medicare costs. Since Medicaid would no longer be necessary, then wouldn't states save some money in their budgets?

Musicmystery -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 5:04:01 AM)
No. The states are responsible for Medicare/Medicaid costs. It's one of the biggest challenges facing state budgets.

UncleNasty -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 8:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You are missing the key point. Your proposal expands the role of government in health care. That has NEVER led to more efficiency and less fraud. That might have been true before the era of the mammoth corporation, but it's crystal clear now that these kinds of corporations beat out even the government when it comes to waste, inefficiency, and fraud. And absent a public option -- that's exactly to whom they intend to give/transfer $800 billion dollars. I beg to differ shannie, but only a little. I'd say greed and fraud fore shore, but not waste and inefficiency. Uncle Nasty

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 10:45:12 AM)
Is there something I am missing? http://www.aging-parents-and-elder-care.com/Pages/Medicare.html Medicare is the federal health insurance program that covers most people age 65 and older. Some younger people who are disabled or who have End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure) are also eligible for coverage. http://missourifamilies.org/features/healtharticles/health46.htm Medicaid is a health insurance program financed and run jointly by the federal and state governments for low-income people of all ages who do not have the money or insurance to pay for health care. The goal of the program is to provide medical and other health care services to eligible individuals so that they are able to remain as self-sufficient as possible. Medicaid is a state administered program. Each state sets its own guidelines, subject to federal rules and guidelines. Certain services must be covered by the states in order to receive federal funds. Other services are optional and are elected by states. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No. The states are responsible for Medicare/Medicaid costs. It's one of the biggest challenges facing state budgets.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 7:50:19 PM)
quote: Certain services must be covered by the states in order to receive federal funds. This part. But again, I'm in basic agreement with you. Just gonna take more funding before governors sign on.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 9:16:10 PM)
That is the part talking about Medicaid. With my suggested solution, Medicaid would no longer be needed. Since Medicaid would no longer be needed, the states would not have to allocate funds to Medicaid. That means the states would save money for their local budgets. So does anyone else have any holes in this? quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Certain services must be covered by the states in order to receive federal funds. This part. But again, I'm in basic agreement with you. Just gonna take more funding before governors sign on.

TheHeretic -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 10:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So does anyone else have any holes in this? Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy.

FullfigRIMAAM1 -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 10:30:44 PM)
I belive it is this simple. I belive that by not adopting anything even closely related to this for a healthcare reform during this administration, the democrats will forever be losers in my opinion... I will probably change to independent, as that is more aligned with my thinking anyway. M

Arpig -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 10:57:17 PM)
quote: Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy. Well why wouldn't they...its been done all over the world...pretty much everywhere except the US.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/17/2009 11:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy. Well why wouldn't they...its been done all over the world...pretty much everywhere except the US. See, that's the disconnect. The people who oppose universal health care on the grounds that the government is not competent enough to administrate it have to take the position that the American government is more incompetent and more corrupt than (for all practical purposes) every other government in the Western world, and in fact more than almost every other government in the world, period. And they're the ones who call us cynics? They're the ones who say we don't believe in our country? Do any of these people ever stop to consider the completely contradictory assumptions that underlie their worldview?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/18/2009 4:34:15 AM)
Notice in my suggestion that you do not have to give up any of your current health care insurance. Medicare is already in place, and just needs the fraud and waste cleaned up, and that is why it is point 1. Believe me that is one of my biggest concerns as well, but health care is coming whether people like it or not. Might as well offer suggestions to make it the best possible. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So does anyone else have any holes in this? Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy.

thishereboi -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/18/2009 5:13:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy. Well why wouldn't they...its been done all over the world...pretty much everywhere except the US. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but after watching the wonderful job they do with VA services, I have little to no confidence in them.

Sanity -> RE: Can it really be simple? (9/18/2009 6:33:49 AM)
Again, Arpig - Canada doesn't even have the population that California does, so there is no comparison. A closer example would be China, which among other things forces women to abort babies they want to keep. And they collect organs from living prisoners, as well. Talk about going green... The question is perfectly legitimate. How much government control of our lives do we really need? With a government our size and a population our size I really don't think that having health care decisions in the hands of some freaking all-powerful bureaucrat or presidentially anointed Czar is a good idea at all. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Well, I'm still waiting to hear why we should have any confidence that gov't can run healthcare, or control the purse for healthcare, without it reducing the quality and efficiency I, and hundreds of millions like me, currently enjoy. Well why wouldn't they...its been done all over the world...pretty much everywhere except the US.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875