Any healthcare ideas?

Damocles said:
Yet we constantly hear how "the republicans haven't even introduced anything," it seems like the press might be a bit lacking in reporting.

So far I posted one R's plan, you posted another. This one seems to be a decent plan, without the bureaucracy taking over.
Click to expand...

I have not heard the press say that!
 
Jarod said:
Interstate highway system.

Military
Click to expand...

We do have an excellent military. But I would hardly call it efficient.

The interstate highway system is very good. But the costs of construction and maintenance are very high. And all of the work is done by subcontractors. Which tells me it would be cheaper without the federal government.
 
Jarod said:
I have not heard the press say that!
Click to expand...
Dude, you haven't heard the Press present any R plan at all, yet on this site no less than two proposed plans have been presented.

On this site alone Onceler (and a few hangers) spent a day talking about how the Rs hadn't even put forward any legislation, at least he stopped when I showed that they had.
 
Damocles said:
Dude, you haven't heard the Press present any R plan at all, yet on this site no less than two proposed plans have been presented.

On this site alone Onceler (and a few hangers) spent a day talking about how the Rs hadn't even put forward any legislation, at least he stopped when I showed that they had.
Click to expand...

They have a plan, they have not promoted it. That is not the fault of the media. Often its easy to blame the media, but they mostly cover events.

President Bush's administration made no attempt to fix what is one of America's largest problems and the biggest contributor to the national debt.
 
Southern Man said:
That's the easiest and most insidious way for the liberal media to advance its agenda- don't report the alternatives. Before the internet and Talk Radio the liberal masses may have had an excuse- but no longer. And yet they make claim of intellectual superiority. *shrug*
Click to expand...


The secret's out. Obama finally admits the thing he likes most about his healthcare plan! It's....

obama_driving_hillary_crazy.jpg

She did all the work, and he gets all the credit!

Now there's Change We Can Believe In!!!!!
 
Jarod said:
They have a plan, they have not promoted it. That is not the fault of the media. Often its easy to blame the media, but they mostly cover events.

President Bush's administration made no attempt to fix what is one of America's largest problems and the biggest contributor to the national debt.
Click to expand...
Except they have. Even resorting to youtube to get the message out. Not covering something is a choice, as shown by ABC who abjectly and directly said they would not give time for the opposition after the in house "newsroom" show.
 
WinterBorn said:
What does our federal government to in a cost effective manner?
Click to expand...

Healthcare.

Its an empirical fact that the adminstrative costs of Medicare, and probably the other government financed programs like TriCare and FEHBP are like an order of magnitue less than that which is provided by private insurance monopolies.
 
some of the specific problems that could be resolved short of investing trillions of dollars....

health insurance is complicated.....this plan has different copays and deductibles than that one, that one covers different things than this one......we should identifiy two or three standard plans so people could shop for plan A, B or C and compare prices....make insurance companies clearly disclose how their plan varies from A, B, or C.....

In most states insurance company profits are linked to the amount they pay out....for example, in Michigan, an insurance company can earn no more profit than 7% of the amount they pay in benefits.....so, if they pay out more to hospitals they can earn more profits.....that is not a logical system.....

there is a disassociation of people from the bills....nobody looks at hospital bills because the insurance covers it, and the insurance premiums are paid by employers and the employers would have to pay it in taxes anyway, so they don't balk at insurance premiums......eliminate deduction of benefit programs.....make it taxable income with credits for low income people to offset the cost and get people back into the business of shopping for lower costs.....
 
I agree that everyone deserve to have medical care in this country. I don't agree that it need to be the same quality. I think we can skip all the way past the creation of national health care the longer lines, poorer quality, then supplemental care pops up and people pay to get better service.. ect

Just have regional Govt health centers for those without insurance. Govt operated. Merge VA, medicare, and this govt safety together. If you don't have insurance you go there and if you had an income that year the govt can take it out of your tax deduction... of course it will operate in the red but you can increase the taxes on the rich as they are proposing to pay for it.
 
Topspin said:
washing window's doesn't make you a business expert. Your statement was exactly opposite of reality.
Size brings efficiency of scale
Click to expand...
Actually my business is consulting, using my college degree and state licenses.

Up to a point than efficient goes down. Small business is more efficient that big business. *shrug*
 
PostmodernProphet said:
some of the specific problems that could be resolved short of investing trillions of dollars....

health insurance is complicated.....this plan has different copays and deductibles than that one, that one covers different things than this one......we should identifiy two or three standard plans so people could shop for plan A, B or C and compare prices....make insurance companies clearly disclose how their plan varies from A, B, or C.....

In most states insurance company profits are linked to the amount they pay out....for example, in Michigan, an insurance company can earn no more profit than 7% of the amount they pay in benefits.....so, if they pay out more to hospitals they can earn more profits.....that is not a logical system.....

there is a disassociation of people from the bills....nobody looks at hospital bills because the insurance covers it, and the insurance premiums are paid by employers and the employers would have to pay it in taxes anyway, so they don't balk at insurance premiums......eliminate deduction of benefit programs.....make it taxable income with credits for low income people to offset the cost and get people back into the business of shopping for lower costs.....
Click to expand...
1: I would agree that some of the complications of health insurance could be reduced, such as language of the contract. But the differences in deductibles, co-pays, coverages, etc. are what people need. For instance, a single male does not need a policy that covers prenatal care. A person with a family history of clinical depression would probably want a policy that has better coverage for treatment of emotional disorders. People in good health, physically fit, with little family background of serious disease could get by with nothing more than accident protection. In short, peoples' health issues are widely varied, and that's why health insurance is widely varied. It's not a problem, it's how things should work.

2: Is a perfect example of what I talked about in another thread - the fact that government regulations are a major part of the problem with health care costs. Without the limitation regulation, insurance would seek the best compromise between coverage - which attracts customers - and cost - passed on as premiums which, if too high, pushes away customers. Hospitals, likewise, would seek the most cost efficient methods of treatment to keep them covered by insurance, as non-covered treatments are often paid off very slowly, if at all.

3: Actually treatment costs ARE looked at, very closely. Insurance premiums are paid by somebody, bed it an individual, or a company that provides health coverage as a benefit. A company that provides health coverage has a vested interest in keeping premiums as low as possible. In short, people are already looking for lowest costs: the patients, the insurance companies, the companies and individuals buying insurance, the medical facilities who depend on insurance to get paid, etc. etc. etc. Taxing benefits would in no way increase this. It's a bogus excuse to tax the people more.
 
Topspin said:
the blind leading the blind, I already knew usged never took a business class Southern tool just confirmed he didn't.
Click to expand...


I still called the recession better than you did.
Did you take my advice and buy Mcdonalds and Wally World?

I can bump my prediction or a few if you like?
 
Good Luck said:
1: I would agree that some of the complications of health insurance could be reduced, such as language of the contract. But the differences in deductibles, co-pays, coverages, etc. are what people need. For instance, a single male does not need a policy that covers prenatal care. A person with a family history of clinical depression would probably want a policy that has better coverage for treatment of emotional disorders. People in good health, physically fit, with little family background of serious disease could get by with nothing more than accident protection. In short, peoples' health issues are widely varied, and that's why health insurance is widely varied. It's not a problem, it's how things should work.

2: Is a perfect example of what I talked about in another thread - the fact that government regulations are a major part of the problem with health care costs. Without the limitation regulation, insurance would seek the best compromise between coverage - which attracts customers - and cost - passed on as premiums which, if too high, pushes away customers. Hospitals, likewise, would seek the most cost efficient methods of treatment to keep them covered by insurance, as non-covered treatments are often paid off very slowly, if at all.

3: Actually treatment costs ARE looked at, very closely. Insurance premiums are paid by somebody, bed it an individual, or a company that provides health coverage as a benefit. A company that provides health coverage has a vested interest in keeping premiums as low as possible. In short, people are already looking for lowest costs: the patients, the insurance companies, the companies and individuals buying insurance, the medical facilities who depend on insurance to get paid, etc. etc. etc. Taxing benefits would in no way increase this. It's a bogus excuse to tax the people more.
Click to expand...


1. so if you do not need maternity care but you get married...
Or your family does not have a history of diabetes, but you get it?

2. Some customers no insurance company wants.

3. Why do insurance companies get cheaper rates on treatments than patients paying cash? Or going in debt for a procedure?
 
uscitizen said:
I still called the recession better than you did.
Did you take my advice and buy Mcdonalds and Wally World?

I can bump my prediction or a few if you like?
Click to expand...

I hear your calling for dark tonignt, just as correct as calling for a recession for 7 straight years.
 
Damocles said:
Yet we constantly hear how "the republicans haven't even introduced anything," it seems like the press might be a bit lacking in reporting.

So far I posted one R's plan, you posted another. This one seems to be a decent plan, without the bureaucracy taking over.
Click to expand...


This bill was introduced in the last Congress, not the current Congress. Where's the other one that you posted?

The republicans haven't offered anything and, although they for a time claimed that they would propose their own bill, they do not appear to be doing so now:

Republicans who had promised last month to offer a healthcare reform alternative are now suggesting no such bill will be introduced.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said, “Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they’ve got to whatever we’re offering right now?”

Blunt, who is running for Senate, is chairman of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group. Cantor made similar comments to The Hill in June, saying Republicans would eventually offer legislative language on healthcare reform.

Democrats on Wednesday called out Republicans, reminding reporters in an e-mail that Blunt had guaranteed that the GOP would introduce a bill.
Click to expand...


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...tive-on-economy-from-the-dems-2009-07-22.html
 
Topspin said:
I hear your calling for dark tonignt, just as correct as calling for a recession for 7 straight years.
Click to expand...

I called for a significant recession, you said it would be a routine adjustment type of thing.

I knew it was inevitable, the spurts did not see it coming.
I just did not know exactly when.

I recall you saying the recovery would be last fall/4th quarter. Someting about best Xmas shopping season ever?

I did not lose a dime on the downturn. How about you?

I am comfortably retired. A result of going from broke to comfortable retirement in about 3 years. You?
and I don't even get SS or Medicare yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top