Health Care Reform Idea...

[Diuretic]

Sometimes you just have to wipe the whiteboard and start again.

Is it - and please accept this as a question/suggestion/idea that isn't borne out of a partisan political view - the case that perhaps now is a good time to work out how health care should be paid for? I know that's a really simplistic question but sometimes simplistic questions have to be asked. Call it the curse of the naive if you wish.

If you were given the power to devise a model for health care for your citizens what sort of model would you favour?

That's a good question, and another good one is, what sort of model would your citizens favor?

This process began with broad bipartisan consensus that our health care system needed to be improved, but the WH and Congress squandered that consensus by putting politics ahead of policy. Instead of beginning the process by examining all the ways we might address the things we wanted to change and crunching the numbers to see what benefits each approach might bring us and what each would cost, the President and the Congress decided the important thing was to get the House and Senate bills finished before the summer recess so the law could be signed just before the 2010 campaign season began. Those in Congress who agreed this was the proper way to go about changing our health care system are receiving the treatment they deserve from their constituents at the town hall meetings.

That seems like a pretty fair point. I'd be more fulsome but I don't fully understand the competing policy positions in depth. Could it be though that the proponents of change realised that my suggestion of clearing the decks to start again would be impossible in practice? Could it be that they've decided to work with what they have and to try to achieve a policy position in full acknowledgement that they have to do what's both possible and practical?

I suppose my theoretical suggestion of wiping the board was directed to people who post here rather than putting it as a a position that could possibly be adopted by the legislature. In essence I'm asking if posters here could remove the competing ideologies from the issue of health care, what would it look like?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is simple: the time is now for reform.

The health insurance companies have compromised the over all health of the American population while getting rich denying insurance to those who need it.

Be part of the solution, because if you oppose it, you will simply get walked over as the screamers and yellers are being walked over by the administration right now.

 

[Diuretic]

As always, politics is the art of the possible and, as always, timing is imperative.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point is simple: the time is now for reform.

The health insurance companies have compromised the over all health of the American population while getting rich denying insurance to those who need it.

Be part of the solution, because if you oppose it, you will simply get walked over as the screamers and yellers are being walked over by the administration right now.

one of the reasons health care is so expensive is that the government got involved.

so the solution is more of the very thing that raised costs in the first place?

If you want to see what government mandated insurance does, look at Massachusetts.

health insurance costs there are now above the national average.

the mandates in the minimum "acceptable" coverage will include a lot of things that a lot of people don't want or need and for which they shouldn't have to pay

seriously if a woman is not planning to get pregnant, why should she pay for insurance that covers in home prenatal visits?

If i don't need substance abuse counseling or mental health counseling, why should I pay for a policy that covers those things?

http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/SBEC%20polseries%2033%20-%20SBSI-Health%5B1%5D%202-3-09.pdf

Additional negative factors in the health care equation are government mandates and regulations.For example, some elected officials think it is a good idea to mandate that insurance companies provide certain kinds of coverage. But each mandate and regulation comes with added costs. No matter what the intentions of elected officials or policymakers have been, government intervention in markets – including regulations and mandates – comes with costs.

 

[dilloduck]

Sometimes you just have to wipe the whiteboard and start again.

Is it - and please accept this as a question/suggestion/idea that isn't borne out of a partisan political view - the case that perhaps now is a good time to work out how health care should be paid for? I know that's a really simplistic question but sometimes simplistic questions have to be asked. Call it the curse of the naive if you wish.

If you were given the power to devise a model for health care for your citizens what sort of model would you favour?

That's a good question, and another good one is, what sort of model would your citizens favor?

This process began with broad bipartisan consensus that our health care system needed to be improved, but the WH and Congress squandered that consensus by putting politics ahead of policy. Instead of beginning the process by examining all the ways we might address the things we wanted to change and crunching the numbers to see what benefits each approach might bring us and what each would cost, the President and the Congress decided the important thing was to get the House and Senate bills finished before the summer recess so the law could be signed just before the 2010 campaign season began. Those in Congress who agreed this was the proper way to go about changing our health care system are receiving the treatment they deserve from their constituents at the town hall meetings.

That seems like a pretty fair point. I'd be more fulsome but I don't fully understand the competing policy positions in depth. Could it be though that the proponents of change realised that my suggestion of clearing the decks to start again would be impossible in practice? Could it be that they've decided to work with what they have and to try to achieve a policy position in full acknowledgement that they have to do what's both possible and practical?

I suppose my theoretical suggestion of wiping the board was directed to people who post here rather than putting it as a a position that could possibly be adopted by the legislature. In essence I'm asking if posters here could remove the competing ideologies from the issue of health care, what would it look like?

Health care is fine. Competing ideologies IS the issue. Who should pay for those who cannot afford health care is the issue isn't it ?

 

[editec]

I think everybody will agree that the majority of the American population wants to see some form of health care reform. Health insurance is either too expensive, or nearly so, for a great many people in the general population. Hospital cost, doctor's fees, and just about anything associated with medical practice here in America is through the roof in cost. People who don't have insurance are being treated and that cost is being pushed off to patients that do have insurance. For whatever reason, be it unemployed, or the company you work for doesn't provide health insurance, a large group of people don't have health insurance. Many don't have it out of personal choice. Health care in general is a problem in this country. It's been that way for probably 30 years or more.

Now, along comes the government and wants to change a 30 year old problem almost overnight by trying to push off onto America a bill that few of the Congressmen have even read and there are several versions of the bill being tossed around in Congress - all of which none of the Congressmen have read. We are told that members of their staff have read portions of it. The President is going around trying to sell a bill that hasn't even been completely written, yet alone read by anybody in it's entirety. Members of Congress are all up in arms saying that if you disagree with them you are somehow unAmerican or a Nazi. A bill to revise health care in America is trying to be rammed through Congress just as fast as it can be just so the politicians can say during the 2010 elections that they were responsible for making it happen for America.

Well, like the refs at a football game, the whistles have been blown and the yellow flags are flying. The support for this health care reform idea is loosing popularity more and more every day. People are leary and distrust Congressmen on this issue and rightfully so. What's the big rush? Health care in this country has been a chronic long-term problem that can't be fixed over night. If congress continues to try, any attempt will fail. Nothing will be solved.

My idea is simply this. Put this issue on the back burner for a month or so and let everybody take a deep breath and relax a little bit. Then throw everything that has been written to date in terms of HR 3200 into the trash can. Begin the process over but this time think about what you want to accomplish and do it in a reasonable and more acceptable way for the citizens of America. Everybody wants change. The thing that Washington is ignoring is that we want that change to be reasonable and something we can all afford. No secrets. No bait and switch sales tactics. Everything above board and out in the open. Have the Congressmen read the bill so they will know what they are talking about when they try to sell the idea to America. This is how you get reform. Not the way it is being handled now. All that is happening right now is the dividing of America on this issue.

The reason that we cannot impose a SIMPLE easy to understand solution to this problem is that we cannot easily migrate from the byzantine mess of programs we have now to a simple solution because there are far too many vested interests who want the system we have now to continue.

the simple solution is singly payer universal HC coverage.

I'm NOT saying I think that will work, of course...merely that that is the simply approach that we probably would impose if we didn't already have the system we have now.

 

[dilloduck]

Why cant' people pay for health care ? Is it too expensive or do people not make enough money ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why cant' people pay for health care ? Is it too expensive or do people not make enough money ?

Maybe the government takes too much of our money.

The president pines that health care comprises 17% of GDP but the government chews up more than twice that.

If spending 17% of GDP on health care will "bankrupt" us, what on earth will spending over 40% of GDP on government do to us?

US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 2009-2010 - Federal State Local

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe you should read the bill and make some suggestions rather than making blanket statements.

That's exatly what John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods did in the WSJ yesterday:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.


And more. Read the article at
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe you should read the bill and make some suggestions rather than making blanket statements.

That's exatly what John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods did in the WSJ yesterday:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.


And more. Read the article at
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

One of the first things to go if the health crae bill passes will be the high deductible HSA plans.

so much for being able to keep what you have if you like it.

 

[Diuretic]

That's a good question, and another good one is, what sort of model would your citizens favor?

This process began with broad bipartisan consensus that our health care system needed to be improved, but the WH and Congress squandered that consensus by putting politics ahead of policy. Instead of beginning the process by examining all the ways we might address the things we wanted to change and crunching the numbers to see what benefits each approach might bring us and what each would cost, the President and the Congress decided the important thing was to get the House and Senate bills finished before the summer recess so the law could be signed just before the 2010 campaign season began. Those in Congress who agreed this was the proper way to go about changing our health care system are receiving the treatment they deserve from their constituents at the town hall meetings.

That seems like a pretty fair point. I'd be more fulsome but I don't fully understand the competing policy positions in depth. Could it be though that the proponents of change realised that my suggestion of clearing the decks to start again would be impossible in practice? Could it be that they've decided to work with what they have and to try to achieve a policy position in full acknowledgement that they have to do what's both possible and practical?

I suppose my theoretical suggestion of wiping the board was directed to people who post here rather than putting it as a a position that could possibly be adopted by the legislature. In essence I'm asking if posters here could remove the competing ideologies from the issue of health care, what would it look like?

Health care is fine. Competing ideologies IS the issue. Who should pay for those who cannot afford health care is the issue isn't it ?

Or is it HOW it should be paid for?

I'm not avoiding your point, it's well made. But I would suggest it's not ideologies as much as practicalities that should be examined.

Should anyone have to pay for services delivered by doctors and/or hospitals?

 

[dilloduck]

That seems like a pretty fair point. I'd be more fulsome but I don't fully understand the competing policy positions in depth. Could it be though that the proponents of change realised that my suggestion of clearing the decks to start again would be impossible in practice? Could it be that they've decided to work with what they have and to try to achieve a policy position in full acknowledgement that they have to do what's both possible and practical?

I suppose my theoretical suggestion of wiping the board was directed to people who post here rather than putting it as a a position that could possibly be adopted by the legislature. In essence I'm asking if posters here could remove the competing ideologies from the issue of health care, what would it look like?

Health care is fine. Competing ideologies IS the issue. Who should pay for those who cannot afford health care is the issue isn't it ?

Or is it HOW it should be paid for?

I'm not avoiding your point, it's well made. But I would suggest it's not ideologies as much as practicalities that should be examined.

Should anyone have to pay for services delivered by doctors and/or hospitals?

"Only if you use them" would be my answer

 

[Diuretic]

Health care is fine. Competing ideologies IS the issue. Who should pay for those who cannot afford health care is the issue isn't it ?

Or is it HOW it should be paid for?

I'm not avoiding your point, it's well made. But I would suggest it's not ideologies as much as practicalities that should be examined.

Should anyone have to pay for services delivered by doctors and/or hospitals?

"Only if you use them" would be my answer

So that's a yes.

Now, what if they can't afford to pay for the services?

 

[dilloduck]

Or is it HOW it should be paid for?

I'm not avoiding your point, it's well made. But I would suggest it's not ideologies as much as practicalities that should be examined.

Should anyone have to pay for services delivered by doctors and/or hospitals?

"Only if you use them" would be my answer

So that's a yes.

Now, what if they can't afford to pay for the services?

My answer would be "Why is it that you cannot afford to pay for the services" ?
Do you waste money that could go to medical bills on things you really don't need ? Do you not save money every month to go for medical needs ? Do you live a healthy life style to keep you from needing medical care ? etc etc

 

[Diuretic]

"Only if you use them" would be my answer

So that's a yes.

Now, what if they can't afford to pay for the services?

My answer would be "Why is it that you cannot afford to pay for the services" ?
Do you waste money that could go to medical bills on things you really don't need ? Do you not save money every month to go for medical needs ? Do you live a healthy life style to keep you from needing medical care ? etc etc

Let's say that they can't pay for the services they need because they don't earn a lot of money. Now what?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So that's a yes.

Now, what if they can't afford to pay for the services?

My answer would be "Why is it that you cannot afford to pay for the services" ?
Do you waste money that could go to medical bills on things you really don't need ? Do you not save money every month to go for medical needs ? Do you live a healthy life style to keep you from needing medical care ? etc etc

Let's say that they can't pay for the services they need because they don't earn a lot of money. Now what?

there are government programs for those truly in need. No one is calling for an end to those programs.

the point here is the government should not be telling those of us, including businesses that provide insurance benefits, what is acceptable coverage.

 

[Diuretic]

My answer would be "Why is it that you cannot afford to pay for the services" ?
Do you waste money that could go to medical bills on things you really don't need ? Do you not save money every month to go for medical needs ? Do you live a healthy life style to keep you from needing medical care ? etc etc

Let's say that they can't pay for the services they need because they don't earn a lot of money. Now what?

there are government programs for those truly in need. No one is calling for an end to those programs.

the point here is the government should not be telling those of us, including businesses that provide insurance benefits, what is acceptable coverage.

So people who can't afford to pay for those services should get them at no cost?

Is that right?

 

[xotoxi]

the mandates in the minimum "acceptable" coverage will include a lot of things that a lot of people don't want or need and for which they shouldn't have to pay

seriously if a woman is not planning to get pregnant, why should she pay for insurance that covers in home prenatal visits?

If i don't need substance abuse counseling or mental health counseling, why should I pay for a policy that covers those things?

What if the woman above becomes pregnant? Would she be able to get coverage at that point?

And how about you...if something happened suddenly that necessitated that you have mental health counseling? Would you be able to get it then? Or would you never be able to get that coverage as you would now have a "pre-existing condition"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

skullpilot above has given us the answer: a two-tier system. Also

• never repeal state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. Insurance companies will grow into even monopolistic structures screwing the customer while trying to get ever possible dollar they can.

• never repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. It is a lie that "what is insured and what is not insured [will] be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying." That is exactly what the insurance bean counters do. They get between you and your doctor's decision making process.

 

[Old Rocks]

Universal Health Care is a form of social insurnance. It would prevent a major illness from wiping out all that one had worked for all their lives. It would also do away with the excuses for not covering someone after they had such an illness.

Yes, it must be paid for. So how do the other Democratic nations pay for it? Which of the ways that they do would work best for us?

We see nations in Europe that have standards of living that now exceed ours providing all with health care, we see none of their citizens going bankrupt because of medical bills. And they have much better results for their systems than we do for ours, even though ours is costing twice as much, per capita.

But all we hear is that we cannot do it. Are the Europeans and Asians that much smarter than we are? That they can do it, and provide a standard of living that is the equal, or even better than ours in some nations, says that we are not doing something right.