What are the suggestionsn on healthcare?

[Inthemiddle]

Obama's bill was horrible and is largely unpopular. Yet the fact still remains that something needs to be done. So what are the suggestions? How to we improve the health care situation in our country?

 

[WatertheTree]

State ran health care. From top to bottom. State ran hospitals, clinics and so on. State paid doctors, nurses and everything else. Mandatory waivers of the right to sue. On the job training for as many positions as possible to hold costs low. Every patient and every treatment needs to be looked at from a 'remaining contribution to society/cost of treatment' perspective.

Private healthcare firms can continue to compete as they see fit.

The answers are out there people, we are the last industrialized nation to figure this out. We dont have healthcare because to many shitbags are making huge profits from the existing failed system.

 

[dblack]

Mostly we have to decide if we want health care to be a free market service, or controlled by the state. The last several decades has shown that trying to have it both ways doesn't work.

 

[Bern80]

State ran health care. From top to bottom. State ran hospitals, clinics and so on. State paid doctors, nurses and everything else. Mandatory waivers of the right to sue. On the job training for as many positions as possible to hold costs low. Every patient and every treatment needs to be looked at from a 'remaining contribution to society/cost of treatment' perspective.

Private healthcare firms can continue to compete as they see fit.

The answers are out there people, we are the last industrialized nation to figure this out. We dont have healthcare because to many shitbags are making huge profits from the existing failed system.

Yes they are. Unfortuantely you just gave a wrong answer.

Want to see the per capita costs of health care decrease drastically in this country? There's a pretty simple solution. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. Many of our health care costs are the direct result of things people voluntarily do to themselves. They smoke, they don't exericise, they're over weight, they don't eat right. Broadley we should treat the costs of health care the way we treat the costs of our automobiles. People who don't maintain either are going to be paying far more to fix them than those that do. You get people to plug into the costs associeted with their health, not futher remove them from it. Stop using insurance to pay for everything. Your auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes, why is it so unreasonable to ask that a person shop around for the best quality and price on their yearly physical and just pay for it themselves. To really see prices go down it is going to take a fundamental shift in how people think about the cost of healthcare. Right now, for most people, it's out of sight out of mind. All they care about is premium costs rather than costs of the services being provided. You make insurance companies compete nationally. You remove government regulations, both state and federal telling insurance companies what they must cover.

People seem to take so for granted the power they have in a free market economy. The consumer is the regulator. The consumer is the price setter. But it requires that consumers plug in and do a little homework. Instead we have all these leftist solutions like the above. Yet more attempts by people like water to absolve people of any accountability or risk. In their world the best solutin is just give government a bunch of money(taxes) and say 'here, handle it.' If you expect the costs of things to go down handling the problem that way, you are in for a surprise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama's bill was horrible and is largely unpopular. Yet the fact still remains that something needs to be done. So what are the suggestions? How to we improve the health care situation in our country?

Free-market....As with auto insurance, no mandates, select what you wish to be covered for, sell across state lines, and ..

... Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Big government solutions are rarely the correct path.

 

[PoliticalChic]

State ran health care. From top to bottom. State ran hospitals, clinics and so on. State paid doctors, nurses and everything else. Mandatory waivers of the right to sue. On the job training for as many positions as possible to hold costs low. Every patient and every treatment needs to be looked at from a 'remaining contribution to society/cost of treatment' perspective.

Private healthcare firms can continue to compete as they see fit.

The answers are out there people, we are the last industrialized nation to figure this out. We dont have healthcare because to many shitbags are making huge profits from the existing failed system.

Hey...and we could call it 'The Commassariat."

I know where we could get lots of signs and posters, cheap!

 

[Liberty]

derp...

1. Allow insurance companies to compete over state lines. more competition = lower prices.
2. Lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors and throw out 99% of malpractice lawsuits. A doctor that ***** up a surgery is not to blame because the customer knew the risks.

Medicine should be like any other business. Doctors should compete and insurance companies should compete.

Problem. Solved.

 

[Dragon]

Single-payer. An expansion of Medicare, the single-payer plan we already have in place, to cover everyone, not just old people. Bargaining power on the part of Medicare to drive prices down. Greatly reduced cost of medical school and/or generous non-loan financial aid for medical students so doctors don't emerge into practice so in debt that they can barely make ends meet even on a six-figure salary.

That would be the way to go.

I disagree that there's any need to have the government run medical care itself. I think we can learn from what other countries have done. France's model (much like I've described above) seems to work better than Britain's, which is true socialized medicine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

derp...

1. Allow insurance companies to compete over state lines. more competition = lower prices.
2. Lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors and throw out 99% of malpractice lawsuits. A doctor that ***** up a surgery is not to blame because the customer knew the risks.

Medicine should be like any other business. Doctors should compete and insurance companies should compete.

Problem. Solved.

Free market efforts, from Beck, "Arguing With Idiots"...

• a) Walgreens has retail health clinics staffed by board-certified Family Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants, and expects to have 400 open by 2010, and CVS plans on about 500. Anyone can walk in and get treatment for about 1/6 the cost of an emergency room, plus about 2/3 are paid for by insurance. Treatment includes: Respiratory Illnesses
• Additional Treatments
• Skin Conditions
• Minor Injuries
• Diagnostic Testing
• Wellness
• Vaccinations
• http://www.takecarehealth.com/about/

b) Wal-Mart offers some 400 different prescription drugs @ $10 for a 90 day supply. CVS, Target, Kroegers, Food Lion, and a number of others have similar plans.

c) eHealthinsurance.com allows you to find health insurance in your zip.

d) Healthcarebluebook.com tells the costs of various procedures and treatments, allowing the consumer to negotiate prices with practitioners.

e) Teledoc gets you on the phone with a licensed physician in 3 hours or less, for $35- or it’s free!

f) American Well will let you talk to a doctor by webcam, text, phone, or IM for $45. And some Wal-Marts have virtual clinics where they can actually look into eyes, ears, and throat by webcam. http://www.americanwell.com/healthplan_FAQs.html

g) For an annual fee of just $480 for singles ($580 for couples and $680 for families) The No Insurance Club offers affordable pre-paid health care plans that cover basic medical services from a participating board-certified physician, with no deductibles, no additional premiums, and no co-payments and either 12 or 16 visits per year. NoInsuranceClub

h) Cosmetic surgery is the closest thing we have to a true free-market system in American. No insurance coverage, and the consumer shops around among practitioners: the price has been falling over time in real terms — despite a huge increase in volume and considerable technical innovation (which is blamed for increasing costs for every other type of surgery).

And,...how about allowing doctors to do what every other professional can do, package services as they please, such as email consultations, and different levels of service as the customer chooses.

 

[WatertheTree]

Obama's bill was horrible and is largely unpopular. Yet the fact still remains that something needs to be done. So what are the suggestions? How to we improve the health care situation in our country?

Free-market....As with auto insurance, no mandates, select what you wish to be covered for, sell across state lines, and ..

... Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Big government solutions are rarely the correct path.

There are clear mandates with auto insurance. So far as I am aware every state requires it for one. For two every state has minimums of coverage.

There is no competition in auto insurance, and they are state wide. The only competition is in marketing, and nothing else. They all participate in the same databases, to monitor who has insurance by who, and now they all run credit checks etc.

Health insurance will be no different, there will be no competition except in marketing. It will be the illusion of competition, and nothing more. Just enough to make people accept forking over there labor for an insurance that will look for any reason to deny coverage. At the same time you will have hospitals and healthcare providers jacking up costs on people with insurance or state coverage to pay for people that do not, same as now.

It will simply not work for the same reasons its not working now.

Dont get me wrong, I know why people want government out of it. I am a strict fiscal conservative. But I am also of the belief that we are all human beings, and basic healthcare is a benifit everyone should recieve just for being a citizen in this nation. It can be done, and it can be done cost effective. Look at India, they have it figured out, cuba has it figured out, bulgaria has it figured out, germany has it figured out.

We just have to decide if we would rather continue to drop bombs on six country's, or if we want to take care of ourselves.

 

[WatertheTree]

Obama's bill was horrible and is largely unpopular. Yet the fact still remains that something needs to be done. So what are the suggestions? How to we improve the health care situation in our country?

Free-market....As with auto insurance, no mandates, select what you wish to be covered for, sell across state lines, and ..

... Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Big government solutions are rarely the correct path.

I think its cute how you contradict yourself. On one had big government solutions are rarely the correct path, but on the other hand your all for big government stripping civil liberties of the people through tort reform mandates.

Thats what tort reform is, or didnt you know. Its passing laws that say people do not have a right to a jury, or that they have right to a jury but the jury is powerless. Its a shield for business, to protect them from the people.

Like I said the other day, your a big government conservative that is all about business and war. Your head is up your ass.

 

[DiamondDave]

Free markets.. reducing regulations so insurance companies can compete more... get the federal government out of healthcare except for the military and wards of the state

 

[francoHFW]

Obamacare will be the most popular program ever when implemented, and will be improved forever. Talk of single payer is pie in the sky for the forseeable future. 60% are against, 70% admit they don't know what it is! Pelosi was right, wait until it's implemented. Dems did this to be popular fcs...
Sanders got $10 billion for low cost clinics, there are guidelines for care that will lower tort costs, insurers are limited to 15% non medical spending (now 27%)- finally, affordable, GUARANTEED care for all, and control of costs (everybody but bought off Pubs say so)-etc etc etc. Stop listening to bought off Pub A-holes and their silly drones.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama's bill was horrible and is largely unpopular. Yet the fact still remains that something needs to be done. So what are the suggestions? How to we improve the health care situation in our country?

Free-market....As with auto insurance, no mandates, select what you wish to be covered for, sell across state lines, and ..

... Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Big government solutions are rarely the correct path.

I think its cute how you contradict yourself. On one had big government solutions are rarely the correct path, but on the other hand your all for big government stripping civil liberties of the people through tort reform mandates.

Thats what tort reform is, or didnt you know. Its passing laws that say people do not have a right to a jury, or that they have right to a jury but the jury is powerless. Its a shield for business, to protect them from the people.

Like I said the other day, your a big government conservative that is all about business and war. Your head is up your ass.

Cute? Well, it's certainly duplicitous that you pretend that you don't know why the why trial lawyers are among the Dem's biggest contributors...


"In the ranking by OpenSecrets.org of campaign contributions by the top 100 special interests during the past 20 years, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) – formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America – ranks sixth overall. The AAJ is the trial lawyers’ Washington lobbying group, and 90 percent of its $30.7 million in contributions since 1989 went to Democrats. At the other end of this pay-to-play process in the nation’s capitol, AAJ has spent nearly $14 million lobbying Congress just since Democrats won control of both chambers, including $2.3 million thus far this year.



The Democratic focus of the plaintiffs bar is even more obvious from campaign contributions of National Journal’s top 15 class-action trial attorney firms. As the Examiner’s David Freddoso and Kevin Mooney reported last week, those firms have contributed in 2009 more than $636,000, 99 percent of which went to Democrats. And employees of those firms have given more than $236,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces an uphill re-election battle, but the top trial lawyers firms are right there for him, with contributions totaling some $54,000 to date."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Why Democrats won't cross the trial lawyers | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner


"...99 percent of which went to Democrats..."

You can't be as dumb as you appear....

....hmmmmm....I guess you can be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obamacare will be the most popular program ever when implemented, and will be improved forever. Talk of single payer is pie in the sky for the forseeable future. 60% are against, 70% admit they don't know what it is! Pelosi was right, wait until it's implemented. Dems did this to be popular fcs...
Sanders got $10 billion for low cost clinics, there are guidelines for care that will lower tort costs, insurers are limited to 15% non medical spending (now 27%)- finally, affordable, GUARANTEED care for all, and control of costs (everybody but bought off Pubs say so)-etc etc etc. Stop listening to bought off Pub A-holes and their silly drones.

Tugboat, every time I think you can't write a dumber post....you sprint right ahead and do!

Americans: 51% opposed, 39% for.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan

 

[WatertheTree]

Free markets.. reducing regulations so insurance companies can compete more... get the federal government out of healthcare except for the military and wards of the state

I would be willing to give this a try aswell. Provided we say goodbye to medicare, medicaid, prescription drug plans etc. All those programs have dont nothing but drive costs up and up.

Deregulate insurance is ok, as long as regulations to protect consumers agianst shady insurance companies is still in place.

No tort reform, part of the free market is letting hospitals choose if they will admita patient that refuses to sign a liability waiver or not.

 

[Bern80]

Single-payer. An expansion of Medicare, the single-payer plan we already have in place, to cover everyone, not just old people. Bargaining power on the part of Medicare to drive prices down. Greatly reduced cost of medical school and/or generous non-loan financial aid for medical students so doctors don't emerge into practice so in debt that they can barely make ends meet even on a six-figure salary.

That would be the way to go.

I disagree that there's any need to have the government run medical care itself. I think we can learn from what other countries have done. France's model (much like I've described above) seems to work better than Britain's, which is true socialized medicine.

Except France's model isn't runing well. It runs deficits in the billions every year forcing them to cut back on reimbursements and what they'll pay for. Sort of defeats the purpose if you ask me.

And how is single payer not essentially government run? Who is the single payer going to be if not some private busienss government appoints with heavy oversight?

I think we need to take a step back and maybe define some parameters because depending on your position, how this should be payed for changes greatly. And the basic question is should maintaing and financing the costs of your health care be your responsibility or governments? If you feel you somehow have a right to good health then obviously it is something that must be tax payer paid for and run by government. If you don't believe that, that is if you believe the individual is responsible for maintaining their health and the costs associated with it, then that is another set of solutions entirely.

 

[Inthemiddle]

State ran health care. From top to bottom. State ran hospitals, clinics and so on. State paid doctors, nurses and everything else. Mandatory waivers of the right to sue. On the job training for as many positions as possible to hold costs low. Every patient and every treatment needs to be looked at from a 'remaining contribution to society/cost of treatment' perspective.

Private healthcare firms can continue to compete as they see fit.

The answers are out there people, we are the last industrialized nation to figure this out. We dont have healthcare because to many shitbags are making huge profits from the existing failed system.

This is pretty extreme. We're going to decide to treat people based on their "remaining contribution to society"? I find that repulsive. What about those born disabled? They'll have to forfeit healthcare from the beginning? The elderly will have used up their allotment? Who get's to decide someone's remaining contribution to society? And what if they do not live up to expectations? Do we go back and remove the liver we transplanted into them and give it to someone else? Who gets to decide what cost is worth how much "contribution"?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Free-market....As with auto insurance, no mandates, select what you wish to be covered for, sell across state lines, and ..

Every state has minimum coverage requirements for auto insurance, and mandates every driver to have it. While I also disagree with mandates, I think comparing health care to auto insurance to maintain that position is flawed.

... Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

I think we discussed this in another thread. The real fire behind "defensive" medicine is the provider's interest in driving up the costs on the patient, and patient ignorance. Provider's cannot order any procedure that the patient does not consent to. The doctor can advise the patient submit to a test, but the patient can refuse. The doctor cannot force it on the patient. And once the doctor has advised the patient in a reasonable manner, he is no longer at risk for a malpractice claim.

So, the excuse that the medical business gives of defensive medicine is just that, an excuse. In truth, the medical business is in the habit of constantly upselling their customers, in order to increase revenues. Since patients are often either ignorant of their rights, swayed by fear, and/or ignorant about their general health, most patients scarcely put up resistance when the doctor says "we should do tests x, y, and z."

 

[Inthemiddle]

1. Allow insurance companies to compete over state lines. more competition = lower prices.

Not necessarily.

2. Lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors and throw out 99% of malpractice lawsuits. A doctor that ***** up a surgery is not to blame because the customer knew the risks.

Not necessarily. You don't know that the patient knew the risks. And not all malpractice is over botched surgery. When I was a kid, my little sister had a friend whose mother died from pneumonia. Her doctor kept misdiagnosing her as having just a cold. I don't remember the details but I remember when it happened, it turned out that the doctor was completely negligent. There were about 5 other local doctors who emphatically stated that there was no justifiable excuse for the guy to have missed the diagnosis.

Medicine should be like any other business. Doctors should compete and insurance companies should compete.

Providers and insurance companies DO compete already. But obviously that's not doing much for us at this point.