joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
I agree. The devil, of course, is in the details. What gets covered and what doesn’t? What do we do about the inevitable corruption? And what about the law of unintended consequences?
Corruption is the tough one. Making rules so that there are no loopholes or exceptions is tricky. What one person considers 'corruption' is another person's 'make the system useful'. We'd like to think all persons will use the system as it was originally intended. Unfortunately, we realize that some persons will try to abuse the system for their own gain, irrelevant to the consequences of those who could have really used the system for something good. That is why there would need to be some sort of 'anti-fraud' group in place, with the ability to investigate and procesute offenders. And given how critical a subject matter we are talking about, there must be oversight on all of this (which it too, can be corrupted). Finally, there will be individuals and organizations, who are trying to remove the system, or install a new one, that favors them over the needs of Americans (these guys start off already corrupted).
How to make a system work, that is free of corruption in this modern era is extremely tough.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
As to the first question I think most of us can agree that anything necessary to live should be covered as well as things affecting quality of life but the later is a bit more problematic. People differ greatly on what constitutes quality of life. Take the aforementioned cosmetic surgery. I think most of us would not be against a mastectomy patient getting a breast implant but would balk at the blond bimbo who just wants to get bigger tips at the strip club. But what about a woman who is born flat chested just wants to look like a “normal” woman? Should that be covered? What about a man who is perfectly healthy but wants a sex change operation?
Case-by-case basis. That really is tough, given that people often want things to be considered 'across the board'. Its much like firearms and ownership in America. What works for one individual out in the boondocks of no where, may not be suitable usage in a heavy populated area like a city. But, we have to make the law equally applied to both persons regardless of the circumstances. Likewise, the circumstances of these cases can be quite serious and complicated. Most people may not understand some of the underling issues at work in a particular case, but must 'sign off' to approve or not on an issue.
Again, the system created, is not going to be a simple defination like the 10th Amendment, but approaching the full content of wikipedia.org. The problem is, convincing a large volume of people to accept and vote in favor of such a system, the grand majority of whom, will only understand 10% of the material at best (and claim/think the remaining 90% is corruption). That 10% number is actually from the percentage of US citizens that actually read the Affordable Care Act of 2010 from 'cover to cover' (like me....)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
As for the second question, I don’t think there is much we can do but deal harshly with those who are caught abusing the system. The truth of the matter is that no system (be it political, economic, health care, etc), no matter how good it looks on paper, can work unless most of the people within the system are decent people willing to play by the rules. Since I am a firm believer that the perfect is the enemy of the good, we have to accept that some level of corruption is going to exist. I can accept that… so long as we put the smack down on those we catch.
I agree with you here. There will be some who abuse the system, and get away with it. If its 'small time', whatever, just as long as we eliminate the moderate and large operations. It does take decent people, to run this system, who are in turn, trusted by other people, to keep things 'for the good of the public'. That is something certain groups in our country are trying to push: fear and accuse the goverment of anything and everything, regardless of how small and petty it really is. Does more damage then the one lady who wants an exception, because her doctor incorrectly states she needed some operation to handle some medical issue she has.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
As for what kind of system would work best… I’ve been kicking a three level voucher system idea around my head… Preventative, Diagnostic, and Treatment.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment: What keeps the insurance and hospitals from simply jacking up the price for treatment, from their current costs, minus the voucher amount to the new amount? To use a voucher system, one would have to limit the ability of the commerical enterprise to raise rates., Republicans in the House thought of this for Medicare in the past, and each time, its been soundly defeated as being to the advantage of insurance/hospitals and not the individual American.
I use Mass Health (being a resident of the Commonwealth). It really is a decently thought out system for health coverage. Problems that come up, can be fixed. The total cost is just 2% of the MA budget. The people running it, are held responible for their actions, words, and more importantly....their decisions. Is there corruption? I'm sure there is, but that is why they have an anti-fraud department. Mass Health is not meant to replace medical/health insurance of citizens in the state; but rather a 'fail safe' designed to keep people from falling through the cracks (which often happens in the other 49 states). The ER is not used as the doctor's office as much anymore, now that 98.2% of the residents can access a doctor on a routine basis. All in all, its a good system. Don't know why conservatives rant against it so much.
|
RE: Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Like Believing... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
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