Solutions

[trueblue]

A lot of talk about whether Obama's healthcare plan is right or wrong, but very few offering alternative solutions. What is your solution?

I think Obama's healthcare plan contradicts itself. He says the plan will improve American lives, meanwhile he plans to pay for it with a $635 billion tax increase and $400 billion of benefit cuts to hospitals. I have two thoughts:

1.) Rather than focusing only on the price of healthcare, why not focus more attention on preventing the need for healthcare by helping Americans eat healthier and exercise. This could be done by eliminating tariffs on fruits and vegetables that would make them more affordable, changing school lunch menus and providing incentives for communities to have sports leagues, marathons and fitness education programs.

2.) Rather than assuming the problems lie only with the healthcare plans, a more detailed analysis of costs might help make things more efficient and therefore less expensive. For example, what would a malpractice lawsuit rewards cap do to malpractice insurance costs and how would that reduce medical costs? I know he's a lawyer with lawyer buddies that get rich off this stuff, but it could be a brilliant political move (not to mention the morally right thing to do). I'm not a hospital administrator, so I don't know what other costs could be cut significantly, but I suspect there is several. Obama's idea of a shared medical database is another example of a good one.

Thoughts? Other solutions?

 

[Political Junky]

I hear Democrats talk about preventive care often.

 

[auditor0007]

I agree that we could do two simple things to really slow healthcare costs. When JFK took office, he made physical fitness a big deal. While the federal government never mandated any specific program, most states followed through with their own requirements.

School kids were to participate in gym classes and receive a reasonable amount of time for physical activitiy. Even when I was in high school in the late 70's, we had gym five days every week for one full semester. Today, it's three days and they only have to do it for a couple of years. In some areas, phys ed is no longer even offered in high school. And after school, kids sit in front of a damn video game for four or five hours, so they're not getting any excercise on their own time either.

Secondly, since the 1970's, the number of peole with type 2 diabetes has doubled as a percentage of the population. Can someone please figure out why this has happened. I have some real good ideas, but we need some real answers. There is a lot of talk that with the advent of the lowfat diet, people began consuming much higher amounts of carbs, which then turn to sugar. It would be great if there were some good studies that would prove or disprove this idea, as well as determine why the prevalence of diabetes has increased so much.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think reducing the cost of apples will prompt anyone to eat fruit rther than a double cheeseburger off of the dollar menu. Likewise, I don't think throwing money at pedestrian projects will cause anyone to walk anywhere that they would otherwise drive.

Regarding health care, my suggestion is to begin with a panel of ten screening procedures and build coverage from there. Include the cost as a tax credit or utilize the services of freshly graduated docs who enjoyed the benefit of financial aid. This method focuses on early detection rather than threatening private sector insurance and worthelss behavior incentives. Mammograms, colonoscopy, diabetes, etc. People won't change their behaviour until they are faced with their own mortality and the cost would be drastically cheaper than a competitive free health care system. Then, as it becomes viable, add coverage of a broader range of services.

 

[trueblue]

I don't think reducing the cost of apples will prompt anyone to eat fruit rther than a double cheeseburger off of the dollar menu. Likewise, I don't think throwing money at pedestrian projects will cause anyone to walk anywhere that they would otherwise drive.

Regarding health care, my suggestion is to begin with a panel of ten screening procedures and build coverage from there. Include the cost as a tax credit or utilize the services of freshly graduated docs who enjoyed the benefit of financial aid. This method focuses on early detection rather than threatening private sector insurance and worthelss behavior incentives. Mammograms, colonoscopy, diabetes, etc. People won't change their behaviour until they are faced with their own mortality and the cost would be drastically cheaper than a competitive free health care system. Then, as it becomes viable, add coverage of a broader range of services.

I think maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say here. Are you suggesting that every person in America should be screened for medical issues and that those ten screenings would be cheaper than free market health care? Because if you are you'll have to explain-- that makes absolutely no sense to me.

People respond to financial incentives, but not everyone responds the same. Bottom line is if you could have an apple for twenty cents or a small hamburger for $1, most people will pick the apple. At least if you believe science.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think reducing the cost of apples will prompt anyone to eat fruit rther than a double cheeseburger off of the dollar menu. Likewise, I don't think throwing money at pedestrian projects will cause anyone to walk anywhere that they would otherwise drive.

Regarding health care, my suggestion is to begin with a panel of ten screening procedures and build coverage from there. Include the cost as a tax credit or utilize the services of freshly graduated docs who enjoyed the benefit of financial aid. This method focuses on early detection rather than threatening private sector insurance and worthelss behavior incentives. Mammograms, colonoscopy, diabetes, etc. People won't change their behaviour until they are faced with their own mortality and the cost would be drastically cheaper than a competitive free health care system. Then, as it becomes viable, add coverage of a broader range of services.

I think maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say here. Are you suggesting that every person in America should be screened for medical issues and that those ten screenings would be cheaper than free market health care? Because if you are you'll have to explain-- that makes absolutely no sense to me.

People respond to financial incentives, but not everyone responds the same. Bottom line is if you could have an apple for twenty cents or a small hamburger for $1, most people will pick the apple. At least if you believe science.

In this American culture i'd challenge your assertion that more people would buy a 20 cent apple over a dollar menu double cheeseburger. Are are in no shortage of apples yet the current trend shows we prefer the cheeseburger. If your opinion were the case then we'd see apple stands instead of drive thru's peppering our business loops. We don't. Your theory is not based on science; it's based on assumptions. Our current obesity level and saturation of fast food dives is evidence... a cornerstone of science.


the screening of ten would be cheaper than universal health care and a good place to grow universal coverage instead of ambiguous competition with private health insurance. Free Market health care is a stratospheric failure... as are almost everything left up to a "rollor coaster without seatbelts" theoretical free market.