Mac1958
Diamond Member
I don't we have that ability any more. Like a muscle, it's use it or lose it.Take-the-partisan-political-motives-out-of-the-process,-work-together-achive-a-workable-solution.-nothing-will-ever-be-perfect.
Seriously.
.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't we have that ability any more. Like a muscle, it's use it or lose it.Take-the-partisan-political-motives-out-of-the-process,-work-together-achive-a-workable-solution.-nothing-will-ever-be-perfect.
If you want to put all your trust in either party at the federal level then have at it.True. And I've always found trusting others more lucrative than fearing them
After watching the circus in DC, I would not feel comfortable with any of them dog sitting for me.Didn't say all my trust. Reasonable caution, always.
eta: The ongoing funding is always a legitimate concern. The bureaucracy far as actually running Medicare is concerned has only proven remarkable.
To Get Perspective on America's Broken Health Care System, Talk to a British DoctorI talked with a guy who immigrated from the UK because his kids were not being treated well in the socialized system there.
I think having both administer different aspects of healthcare is good.
If you had states run things, you would have 50 laboratories going to see what works well and what does not in actual time, instead of listening to some spin troll insist we all put our eggs in one basket and how much worse things would have been had we not done so.I think having both administer different aspects of healthcare is good. Allow the States to continue catering to the specific needs of their inhabitants while the Feds ensure all are covered at some basic level and handle the non-State citizenry.
Grumble, please stop grumbling, and tell us what you mean? I'd like to know more on it....Answer, "Fuck no."Does that sound like the foundation of a smart, efficient health care system to you?
.
Want more?
To Get Perspective on America's Broken Health Care System, Talk to a British DoctorI talked with a guy who immigrated from the UK because his kids were not being treated well in the socialized system there.
If you had states run things, you would have 50 laboratories going to see what works well and what does not in actual time, instead of listening to some spin troll insist we all put our eggs in one basket and how much worse things would have been had we not done so.I think having both administer different aspects of healthcare is good. Allow the States to continue catering to the specific needs of their inhabitants while the Feds ensure all are covered at some basic level and handle the non-State citizenry.
If we the people ran things, instead of government, we'd have 300 million laboratories.
Didn't say all my trust. Reasonable caution, always.
eta: The ongoing funding is always a legitimate concern. The bureaucracy far as actually running Medicare is concerned has only proven remarkable.
OK, Trump could take the wind out of a lot of Democrat sails if whe would do two things:
1) Adopt this Personalized Health Care proposal; Personalized Healthcare - Healthcare for You
Putting patients in charge by removing barriers that separate them from their doctors.
Reform: Eliminate unnecessary government red tape that create hours of unnecessary paperwork and strangle the patient-doctor relationship.
- We must remove unnecessary red tape that separates doctors and patients. Under Obamacare’s electronic health record (EHR) regulation, doctors are required to spend about half of their time on paperwork and data entry instead of patient care. Regulations like that have put a literal and figurative screen between doctors and patients.
- Red tape and regulations are driving physicians out of private practice; we need more independent doctors, not fewer. 53 percent of doctors are now payroll physicians employed by hospitals. Those doctors are beholden to the hospital and not their patients.
- The doctor-patient relationship is intimate and personal; no one knows better what kind of treatment a patient needs than that patient’s doctor.
Personal Health Management Accounts to give patients more control over their healthcare dollars.
Reform: Change current rules around Health Savings Accounts by a) increasing the maximum HSA contribution, b) allowing people to pay for insurance premiums from an HSA account so individuals have the same tax advantage currently enjoyed by corporate employees, c) repeal the requirement that exclusively links HSAs to certain high deductible plans and d) allow people to contribute to an HSA and use it to fund a Medical Cost Sharing plan or a Direct Medical Care arrangement.
- Personal Health Management accounts allow patients to purchase insurance plans that are customized to their needs and portable—similar to life and auto insurance—so individuals can take it with them from job to job. This eliminates the fear of losing health insurance when you change jobs or move.
- Employers can opt to contribute directly to these accounts, getting them out of the insurance business which puts healthcare decisions in the hands of their employees, not employers and their third-party administrators.
- This allows employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay for healthcare and gives them the same tax benefits enjoyed by employers.
- Allows patients to only pay for what they need, not a one size fits all government plan like Medicare For All.
Expanding Direct Medical Care to increase choices and lower costs.
Reform: Eliminate rules that restrict the use of direct medical care and encourage patients to take advantage of alternative avenues to receiving health services.
- Putting patients back in charge of their healthcare spending through expanded pre-tax accounts will vastly increase direct medical care, which cuts out middlemen to lower costs and gives patients more choice.
- For family care needs, direct medical care is known as direct primary care, which offers families all their primary medical care needs for one low monthly membership fee – no insurance or middlemen necessary. Patients can get access to their regular doctors at any time through call, text, or telemedicine.
- For other procedures – at surgery centers, for instance – direct medical care means transparent cash prices, which will allow patients to price shop, lowering prices.
- Cash prices are often cheaper than what insurers can offer. According to Vanderbilt economist Larry Van Horn, cash healthcare prices are 40 percent lower than insurers’ negotiated rates.
- Whether it’s a monthly membership fee for Direct Primary Care, posted pricing at a surgical center, or fee for service from a specialist, patients will be able to get healthcare at a lower price and have more choice.
Lowering insurance premiums through increased choice and price transparency.
Reform: End rules that regulate what should be included in a healthcare plan, how you can access it and when you can keep it.
- In every industry where we have more choice and price transparency, we see lower prices and more innovation; healthcare is not an exception to this economic fact.
- End inefficient federal rules and requirements on private insurance plans and allow states to expand and regulate their private insurance markets to offer more choice and better options.
- Let patients purchase plans that are customized to their needs like they do with auto and life insurance
- Rather than another centralized federal experiment, we should remove federal regulations on this private market and let the state insurance departments and lawmakers tackle problems or concerns. What works best in New York may not work for Kansas. You should not be required to pay for features that you don’t want.
- End federal restrictions on modern healthcare advances like telemedicine, which allows patients to access their physicians via text, email and SKYPE, decreasing time spent waiting in doctors’ offices to be seen for minor issues.
Lowering drug prices.
Reform: Repeal the legislation that exempts these middlemen from penalty for violating the federal anti-kickback law.
- Return savings back to the patients instead of medicine middlemen; right now $250 billion per year goes to middlemen.
- Nearly all the recent increases in drug list prices can be chalked up to rising rebates.
Protecting against pre-existing conditions.
Reform: Give states the autonomy to guarantee a health insurance policy that cannot raise people’s rates or drop them from coverage due to health conditions. Many states have these laws in place, but they are moot under the ACA. Others can amend their laws to include it, or they can set up risk pools.
- Patients will be covered even if they have a pre-existing condition.
- Allow employees to use Personal Health Management Accounts to buy their own health insurance which prevents any lapse in coverage when changing jobs. This change helps address some of the problems of pre-existing conditions.
And ...
2) Reform MedicAID into a government run health insurance system that is pro-rated for income level and the premium based on national averages - 20%.
I think if you do that, most moderates thinking about a Democrat will jump over to Trump because we get national health care coverage for everyone, and keep our private insurance too.
Providing affordable healthcare for all does work
So why not save MedicAID by converting it to a government run insurance program?
And why do you think that the MedicAID low reimbursement rates wont become the norm for a universalized Medicare system?
That is all you will do, turn Medicare which does work into a MedicAID 2 that does not work.
And it's not an even comparison anyway. Socializing health insurance is not the same as socializing healthcare.
State level would be a little better than federal, but government shouldn't control access to health care - at any level.If you had states run things, you would have 50 laboratories going to see what works well and what does not in actual time, instead of listening to some spin troll insist we all put our eggs in one basket and how much worse things would have been had we not done so.I think having both administer different aspects of healthcare is good. Allow the States to continue catering to the specific needs of their inhabitants while the Feds ensure all are covered at some basic level and handle the non-State citizenry.
If we the people ran things, instead of government, we'd have 300 million laboratories.
What is wrong with letting conservatives states have a conservative government and liberal states having a liberal government, or do you like half the country wanting to secede from the union every Presidential election?
Those that wish to limit the power of a federal Congress that can't manage to attain a public opinion poll that is above 20% approval, yet we still call ourselves a democracy, I suggest you begin to support the movement for state rights, which is called the Article V movement.
The Founding Fathers correctly were concerned about a Federal government that would become too powerful and corrupt, which we see today, so that is why they included in the Article V amendment in the Constitution the power of the states to amend the Constitution. It has never been done before, but currently about a dozen have joined and all that is needed is 2/3 of the states to agree.
Once they do, they can implement amendments such as term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment of some sort for Congress to have to go by. This is the ONLY way to limit the power and corruption that exists in the US Congress. There is no other legal way to go about it because they won't impose term limits on themselves nor will they restrict their own spending in any way willfully.
About 80% of Americans favor doing this yet the will of the people will continue to be ignored until we rise up.
Enquiring minds want to know.Grumble, please stop grumbling, and tell us what you mean? I'd like to know more on it....Answer, "Fuck no."Does that sound like the foundation of a smart, efficient health care system to you?
.
Want more?