A glimpse into your future courtesy of RomneyCare…

Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

you've earlier established that abuse of hippocratic care would result in unreconciled costs which providers would have to eat. can you explain how medicare hasn't functioned to significantly displace the extent of this un-paid treatment, or how mandates would not go further in this way?

on the basis of that paradox, it is apparent, despite yours and your friends involvement in healthcare, that you've all failed to make a logical attribution to the sources of cost increases in our system.

And perhaps we haven't failed at all. Government's role should be to secure the rights of the people which would include application of Ricco and Anti Trust laws, requirements for a free market--no monopolies unless there is a compelling need for there to be one. Requirements that rates be posted and applied uniformly. A medical provider can reduce or waive fees but cannot charge more simply because somebody is perceived to be able to pay more. The government would do a huge service by making it possible to cap malpractice claims in all but gross negligence and making it much more difficult to file frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits. The government absolutely should test and verify credentials and then license medical professionals.

What the government should not do is organize or administer or mandate healthcare in any way or otherwise interject itself into a free market. It should not set rates, fees, or other costs.

I am actually gonna agree with a lot of this last post.

"Government's role should be to secure the rights of the people which would include application of Ricco and Anti Trust laws, requirements for a free market--no monopolies unless there is a compelling need for there to be one. Requirements that rates be posted and applied uniformly. A medical provider can reduce or waive fees but cannot charge more simply because somebody is perceived to be able to pay more. The government would do a huge service by making it possible to cap malpractice claims in all but gross negligence and making it much more difficult to file frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits. The government absolutely should test and verify credentials and then license medical professionals."

i have no arguments for any of this.


the last sentence i will disagree with partially. since the government is not actually setting the insurance rates of the private companies. the government actually already organizes and administers HC when it comes to the VA and Medicare and Medicaid. Both of which are highly popular and highly used programs.

the problem we have with the free market sometimes is that greed overshadows most everything (in recent years). many times people do not do the ethical or responsible thing. can simply look at the collapse of the banking system for this, as well as the continuing increase in the gap between the rich and the middle class. once you are at the top you tend to protect yourself and your $ at the expense of others. regulations exist to create fair and safe business practices. they should not however impede a companies ability to do business.

for example, i have heard many conservatives say they are for eliminating the OSHA. (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) they believe that OSHA simply exists to limit small businesses from doing their jobs. they forget about all of the work place standards they regulate and oversee which directly protect workers.

the free market is great in theory, but practically in many areas it doesnt work. (natural monopolies so exist for our benefit - electrical and water utilities) the barriers to entry are extremely high and it is to the benefit of everyone to restrict competition and regulate prices.
 
The government is absolutely setting the fees and copay that can be charged for Medicare and Medicaid both in the physicians office, in the E.R., and in the hospital as well as what it will pay for various other kinds of tests and specialized procedures. As that has grossly distorted charges for everybody else who have to make up the difference, the worst result is that it has made medical care an impersonal and soulless profession to a large degree and while distorting and skewing doctor/patient relationships and the fees, has buried the profession in paperwork.

There was a time that one or two doctors with one nurse and perhaps a receptionist could provide the basic healthcare needs of a small town including filing insurance claims, keeping the charts, handling the accounting, and doing all other necessary paperwork. Now a doctor needs a sizable staff just to handle the paperwork alone.
 
The government is absolutely setting the fees and copay that can be charged for Medicare and Medicaid both in the physicians office, in the E.R., and in the hospital as well as what it will pay for various other kinds of tests and specialized procedures. As that has grossly distorted charges for everybody else who have to make up the difference, the worst result is that it has made medical care an impersonal and soulless profession to a large degree and while distorting and skewing doctor/patient relationships and the fees, has buried the profession in paperwork.

There was a time that one or two doctors with one nurse and perhaps a receptionist could provide the basic healthcare needs of a small town including filing insurance claims, keeping the charts, handling the accounting, and doing all other necessary paperwork. Now a doctor needs a sizable staff just to handle the paperwork alone.


i would agree with this if everyone would be covered under medicare or medicaid. but it is up to the doctors themselves to determine if they will accept medicare of medicaid patients. what i was simply stating is that insurers such as Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Kaiser, Aetna and United Health Care are not being told by the government what they can and can not charge. since medicare and medicaid are government programs, they do reserve the right to set their own fees, just as doctors reserve the right to not accept new patients.
 
The point is once the government sets the payments below cost, the medical providers have to eat the loss or charge more to other customers. Those higher costs to other customes invariably translate into higher costs for everything from aspirin tablets to wheel chairs to operating rooms which generates inflation. And when medicare and medicaid don't keep up with inflation, the problem is exacerbated by costs everywhere else dramatically escalating. What the doctor loses in routine fees for Medicare he tries to make up by ordering a gazillion different tests and medications that would not otherwise be ordered. So the government finally allows a bit more for their programs but it still isn't enough but still pushes the costs even higher. Insurance Companies forced into paying ever higher medical costs for everything raise their premium rates accordingly and that again exacerbates the whole problem.

Get government out of it, put enough regulation into it to protect the rights of the people, and let the free market and normal competition work and all that goes away. Costs won't rise any more than people are willing and able to pay.
 
Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

you've earlier established that abuse of hippocratic care would result in unreconciled costs which providers would have to eat. can you explain how medicare hasn't functioned to significantly displace the extent of this un-paid treatment, or how mandates would not go further in this way?

on the basis of that paradox, it is apparent, despite yours and your friends involvement in healthcare, that you've all failed to make a logical attribution to the sources of cost increases in our system.

And perhaps we haven't failed at all. Government's role should be to secure the rights of the people which would include application of Ricco and Anti Trust laws, requirements for a free market--no monopolies unless there is a compelling need for there to be one. Requirements that rates be posted and applied uniformly. A medical provider can reduce or waive fees but cannot charge more simply because somebody is perceived to be able to pay more. The government would do a huge service by making it possible to cap malpractice claims in all but gross negligence and making it much more difficult to file frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits. The government absolutely should test and verify credentials and then license medical professionals.

What the government should not do is organize or administer or mandate healthcare in any way or otherwise interject itself into a free market. It should not set rates, fees, or other costs.

i feel the pragmatism and accountability to history slipping already. could you clarify whether or not you are stating that there should not be any public hospitals, or that the informal almshouse system which failed to care for americans in the wake of the civil war should be revisited with respect to the minimum standard of healthcare in the US? where in africa have you traveled?

before this last statement, i think your perspectives are agreeable, although there are contradictions to the idea of free markets while pricing is uniformed (fixing prices), care cannot be denied in emergencies or under threat of life (fixing supply), and privacy of medical records must be maintained (imperiling perfect information).

perhaps this is a question of the extent which someone sees to be vital infrastructure in a country, and how to approach those obligations.
 
The states would be free, as the Constitution has always decreed, to do anything the people were willing to do. The people could pass bond issues in their town to provide for a charity hospital as the people of New York did many years ago with Bellevue and the people of Albuquerque did with UNM Hospital here. There is--wisely--nothing in the US Constiution that authorizes or mandates the U.S. government to take on that kind of responsibility. And it should not.
 
Get government out of it, put enough regulation into it to protect the rights of the people, and let the free market and normal competition work and all that goes away. Costs won't rise any more than people are willing and able to pay.


this last statement is kinda counterintuitive. want the government out, but still want them to regulate.

and like i said before, just because you are a doctor, doesnt mean you have to accept medicare and medicaid patients into your practice. its a choice.
 
The states would be free, as the Constitution has always decreed, to do anything the people were willing to do. The people could pass bond issues in their town to provide for a charity hospital as the people of New York did many years ago with Bellevue and the people of Albuquerque did with UNM Hospital here. There is--wisely--nothing in the US Constiution that authorizes or mandates the U.S. government to take on that kind of responsibility. And it should not.

to look on the other side of this. there is nothing in the constitution that says that they can not.
 
Get government out of it, put enough regulation into it to protect the rights of the people, and let the free market and normal competition work and all that goes away. Costs won't rise any more than people are willing and able to pay.


this last statement is kinda counterintuitive. want the government out, but still want them to regulate.

and like i said before, just because you are a doctor, doesnt mean you have to accept medicare and medicaid patients into your practice. its a choice.

Regulate only to secure the rights of the people. The Federal Government should never do more than that.

When a huge portion of the population is the elderly who need a lot of medical care, there is no way in hell that there won't be some in a free market who won't tap into that.
 
Get government out of it, put enough regulation into it to protect the rights of the people, and let the free market and normal competition work and all that goes away. Costs won't rise any more than people are willing and able to pay.


this last statement is kinda counterintuitive. want the government out, but still want them to regulate.

and like i said before, just because you are a doctor, doesnt mean you have to accept medicare and medicaid patients into your practice. its a choice.

Regulate only to secure the rights of the people. The Federal Government should never do more than that.

When a huge portion of the population is the elderly who need a lot of medical care, there is no way in hell that there won't be some in a free market who won't tap into that.

the problem with the elderly is that they as a group are more expensive to insure than 20 and 30 year olds. affordability is the biggest obstacle everyone faces.

can you point to an affordable, private insurance plans for seniors?
 
this last statement is kinda counterintuitive. want the government out, but still want them to regulate.

and like i said before, just because you are a doctor, doesnt mean you have to accept medicare and medicaid patients into your practice. its a choice.

Regulate only to secure the rights of the people. The Federal Government should never do more than that.

When a huge portion of the population is the elderly who need a lot of medical care, there is no way in hell that there won't be some in a free market who won't tap into that.

the problem with the elderly is that they as a group are more expensive to insure than 20 and 30 year olds. affordability is the biggest obstacle everyone faces.

can you point to an affordable, private insurance plans for seniors?

There used to be. There aren't affordable private insurance plans for anybody but the wealthy right now. Put the system back in the free market, apply appropriate RICCO and antitrust laws and ban monopolies, and the free market will provide affordable insurance for everybody.
 
Regulate only to secure the rights of the people. The Federal Government should never do more than that.

When a huge portion of the population is the elderly who need a lot of medical care, there is no way in hell that there won't be some in a free market who won't tap into that.

the problem with the elderly is that they as a group are more expensive to insure than 20 and 30 year olds. affordability is the biggest obstacle everyone faces.

can you point to an affordable, private insurance plans for seniors?

There used to be. There aren't affordable private insurance plans for anybody but the wealthy right now. Put the system back in the free market, apply appropriate RICCO and antitrust laws and ban monopolies, and the free market will provide affordable insurance for everybody.

exactly, it was the free market that drove prices so high, only the wealthy could then afford. it wasnt the governments fault. private insurance hard to cover their costs and raised rates on the elderly. Medicare was the solution to this and it was exactly what the insurance companies wanted originally. They had no risk in the pool anymore as it was shifted to the government. how exactly is the free market going to drive prices down? the free market in this case has only driven prices up.
 
The states would be free, as the Constitution has always decreed, to do anything the people were willing to do. The people could pass bond issues in their town to provide for a charity hospital as the people of New York did many years ago with Bellevue and the people of Albuquerque did with UNM Hospital here. There is--wisely--nothing in the US Constiution that authorizes or mandates the U.S. government to take on that kind of responsibility. And it should not.

perhaps we see the function of our government differently. the congress, representatives of the states to the federal government, have drafted and voted measures whereby the federal and state governments cooperate to effect infrastructure projects and facilitate citizens' access to such. neo-constitutionalists regularly overlook the willingness of states to collude with the federal government, and that state officials dont share their more confederate perspectives. the states seem to subscribe to different wisdom than yourself with regard to whether bond-financed medical care might be sustainable, or as to the benefits of a nationally coordinated rather than state-by-state health infrastructure.
 
I see that whenever the Federal government presumes to confiscate the property of the people and then dole it back out to them in whatver form, it becomes a corrupting influence on both those in government and to the recipients of the largesse. I want the Federal government to be stripped of that ability and leave the money with the states and local communities who will use it as the people want it used and where it is less likely to buy power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth for a federal elected representative.
 
The states would be free, as the Constitution has always decreed, to do anything the people were willing to do. The people could pass bond issues in their town to provide for a charity hospital as the people of New York did many years ago with Bellevue and the people of Albuquerque did with UNM Hospital here. There is--wisely--nothing in the US Constiution that authorizes or mandates the U.S. government to take on that kind of responsibility. And it should not.

perhaps we see the function of our government differently. the congress, representatives of the states to the federal government, have drafted and voted measures whereby the federal and state governments cooperate to effect infrastructure projects and facilitate citizens' access to such. neo-constitutionalists regularly overlook the willingness of states to collude with the federal government, and that state officials dont share their more confederate perspectives. the states seem to subscribe to different wisdom than yourself with regard to whether bond-financed medical care might be sustainable, or as to the benefits of a nationally coordinated rather than state-by-state health infrastructure.

that was part of the reason for the civil war. (other than the whole slavery issue) states in the south wanted to more power than the federal government. while the north wanted a strong federal government who oversaw and passed down power to the states. the problem with states regulating their own insurance, is that it does not create universal standards of care and portability. under this argued system, if states were to control everything. each state would have it own practices, standards and policies. which mean that each insurance company would then be required to build state specific products. this also means that states would then have to have agreement with each other in order to be able to take your insurance policy across states lines and still have the same benefits. otherwise each policy would need to get a rider that would cover you across state lines. (this is similar to the affect of free trade agreement). by putting more power back into the states, you actually create more barriers that have to be addressed, than simply letting the federal government set broad standards for the whole.
 
I see that whenever the Federal government presumes to confiscate the property of the people and then dole it back out to them in whatver form, it becomes a corrupting influence on both those in government and to the recipients of the largesse. I want the Federal government to be stripped of that ability and leave the money with the states and local communities who will use it as the people want it used and where it is less likely to buy power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth for a federal elected representative.

that's all fine. you have proposed a fundamental change in the US constitution, which has never and likely will never happen or even be proposed. while you may attribute this fact to corruption, i could vouch for perspectives outside the influence of the largess, while saying it is an awful idea. this is another element whereby i see idealists criticizing practical policy. we're not talking about healthcare in the paradigm you want, this is about healthcare in the united states. the two are very, very different.
 
I see that whenever the Federal government presumes to confiscate the property of the people and then dole it back out to them in whatver form, it becomes a corrupting influence on both those in government and to the recipients of the largesse. I want the Federal government to be stripped of that ability and leave the money with the states and local communities who will use it as the people want it used and where it is less likely to buy power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth for a federal elected representative.

that's all fine. you have proposed a fundamental change in the US constitution, which has never and likely will never happen or even be proposed. while you may attribute this fact to corruption, i could vouch for perspectives outside the influence of the largess, while saying it is an awful idea. this is another element whereby i see idealists criticizing practical policy. we're not talking about healthcare in the paradigm you want, this is about healthcare in the united states. the two are very, very different.

i guess that is the fundamental difference here. foxfyre sees the federal government as an organization that takes away and limits rights, as opposed to providing you with and protecting that rights. you also want to take power away from the fed and give it back to the states. Antagon is completely right in that you are suggesting a fundamental change to the constitution.
 
The states would be free, as the Constitution has always decreed, to do anything the people were willing to do. The people could pass bond issues in their town to provide for a charity hospital as the people of New York did many years ago with Bellevue and the people of Albuquerque did with UNM Hospital here. There is--wisely--nothing in the US Constiution that authorizes or mandates the U.S. government to take on that kind of responsibility. And it should not.

perhaps we see the function of our government differently. the congress, representatives of the states to the federal government, have drafted and voted measures whereby the federal and state governments cooperate to effect infrastructure projects and facilitate citizens' access to such. neo-constitutionalists regularly overlook the willingness of states to collude with the federal government, and that state officials dont share their more confederate perspectives. the states seem to subscribe to different wisdom than yourself with regard to whether bond-financed medical care might be sustainable, or as to the benefits of a nationally coordinated rather than state-by-state health infrastructure.

that was part of the reason for the civil war. (other than the whole slavery issue) states in the south wanted to more power than the federal government. while the north wanted a strong federal government who oversaw and passed down power to the states. the problem with states regulating their own insurance, is that it does not create universal standards of care and portability. under this argued system, if states were to control everything. each state would have it own practices, standards and policies. which mean that each insurance company would then be required to build state specific products. this also means that states would then have to have agreement with each other in order to be able to take your insurance policy across states lines and still have the same benefits. otherwise each policy would need to get a rider that would cover you across state lines. (this is similar to the affect of free trade agreement). by putting more power back into the states, you actually create more barriers that have to be addressed, than simply letting the federal government set broad standards for the whole.
these are astute observations. i'd say the slavery issue was about state sovereignty in itself, in fact. 'portability' jumps off this post as above. it is one of the most crucial proceeds of uniformity, now that our country is integrated in ways nobody in the 18th century could have imagined. the concept of 'united' states depends on measures of uniformity, and i feel state and federal lawmakers have recognized that as had the framers. the wisdom of the founders was in not presuming the extent and application of this uniformity centuries into the future, but availing those entrusted their role through our government to do so in their time.

this wisdom is lost on some criticisms of policy in the vein of confederacy.
 
i guess that is the fundamental difference here. foxfyre sees the federal government as an organization that takes away and limits rights, as opposed to providing you with and protecting that rights. you also want to take power away from the fed and give it back to the states. Antagon is completely right in that you are suggesting a fundamental change to the constitution.

i feel that the government does blockade many of our rights, but dont exempt state and local governments from that role. they do make efforts to protect them at the same time... just to clarify my thoughts on rights and government. i believe this give and take is the essence of society and civility, though... particularly in the US where there is relative order.
 
i feel that the government does blockade many of our rights, but dont exempt state and local governments from that role. they do make efforts to protect them at the same time... just to clarify my thoughts on rights and government. i believe this give and take is the essence of society and civility, though... particularly in the US where there is relative order.

agreed. there are no technical absolute rights. everything is give a context. the easiest to see is the right to free speech which we all hold dear. but at the same time someone who yells fire in a crowded room is not exercising free speech, he is inciting panic and thus can be held accountable for it. but i also believe that many of the laws we have and right we either have or give up are a direct reaction to outside influences. (9/11 for example) after that day the world changed and so did our perception of some of our rights. things such as searches at airports, not being able to take liquids through the metal detectors, government eavesdropping. these all became this which is some peoples view violated our rights, but we came to accept them in exchange for our safety.
 

Forum List

Back
Top