Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

Well, off the top of my head, it would help a lot if small businesses can join together in a single health plan to bring the rates down. Big plans are much more affordable than small plans.

Another means would be legally recognized civil unions that would allow those who choose not to marry or who cannot marry for form family units and thus share a family plan offering lower rates than a single plan can.

A huge help would be major tort reform limiting product liability on new and experimental drugs so that the cost of these would not need to be so high and also on malpractice suits that could bring down the cost of physician care, physical therapy, hospitilization etc. Free trade allowing other countries to complete in the pharamceutical market in the USA would also help toward that end. Cases of intentional gross negligence could be exempt from liability limits but these are extremely rare and the requirements of proof would of necessity need to be quite strict.

Loosening up the FDA requirements on experimental drugs so that diagnosed terminal patients could get them would be another thing I think that should happen.

There are no doubt other means, but this is what I could think of on short notice.

Malpractice lawsuits represent a tiny percentage of Insurance company liabilities, and do not need limiting whatsoever. Other than that I agree completely with what you've written.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

I agree; we should switch to a nationalized- or state-run healthcare plan immediately.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

Better mental and physical health of employees ensure higher productivity.
That's the logic isn't it?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

Companies need employees. If they do not offer certain benefits, employees will go to companies that do offer them. I would not take a job that did not offer health insurance, not only for myself, but my family as well.

Are companies now required to provide healthcare? I ask because I do not know that answer and don't feel like looking it up.

0 Replies

In Canada there is no obligation for any company to provide health care. Many large corporations, and many progressive smaller companies do in some way shape or form.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

Well, off the top of my head, it would help a lot if small businesses can join together in a single health plan to bring the rates down. Big plans are much more affordable than small plans.

Another means would be legally recognized civil unions that would allow those who choose not to marry or who cannot marry for form family units and thus share a family plan offering lower rates than a single plan can.

A huge help would be major tort reform limiting product liability on new and experimental drugs so that the cost of these would not need to be so high and also on malpractice suits that could bring down the cost of physician care, physical therapy, hospitilization etc. Free trade allowing other countries to complete in the pharamceutical market in the USA would also help toward that end. Cases of intentional gross negligence could be exempt from liability limits but these are extremely rare and the requirements of proof would of necessity need to be quite strict.

Loosening up the FDA requirements on experimental drugs so that diagnosed terminal patients could get them would be another thing I think that should happen.

There are no doubt other means, but this is what I could think of on short notice.

Ok, thanks.

On your first point, I think that any group of people who wants to pool together to buy insurance should be able to.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

I agree; we should switch to a nationalized- or state-run healthcare plan immediately.

Cycloptichorn

No,we shouldnt do that either.
If you want health insurance,go out and purchase it on your own.
Or better yet,pay for your own health care.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

I actually agree with that too. The employer based model doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me -- especially in this day and age where people don't stay with one company for 30 years like they might have before. Also, it discourages entrepreneurship because people see a larger risk in venturing out on their own when it means they either have to go without or buy their own health insurance. Insurance premiums are tax free when taken out of a paycheck, but not when you pay them out of your pocket.

As for why should employers do it -- they do it to remain competitive. Myself, I'd rather trade my insurance for twice as much vacation time, but then, I don't really "believe" in health insurance.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are companies now required to provide healthcare? I ask because I do not know that answer and don't feel like looking it up.

Being also too lazy to look it up, I think they are required if they are above a certain size with full time employees. Employees are sometimes required to buy it, though. For instance, in my last two jobs I was not allowed to opt out of it unless I provided proof of other coverage.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Plans to help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all would fit with Reagan conservatism. The government providing it would not.

I'm curious. What kinds of things would help the private sector provide affordable healthcare to all?

More important...
WHY should employers have to provide health care?

Companies are not in business to be social service providers.
They are in business to make a profit.

Why should they provide anything more then a days pay for a days work?

Companies need employees. If they do not offer certain benefits, employees will go to companies that do offer them. I would not take a job that did not offer health insurance, not only for myself, but my family as well.

Are companies now required to provide healthcare? I ask because I do not know that answer and don't feel like looking it up.

No they are not and many small companies do not mostly because they have too rapid turnover or too few employees or two few employees willing to sign up to make one financially feasable. Most large companies do perhaps out of genuine concern for their employees and/or in order to be competitive in attracting good people. Many large companies would be delighted if the federal government made health care mandatory which would likely run many of their smaller competitors out of business.

When our kids were home, either my husband or I did work for somebody who had a health plan. Sometimes we had to contribute to it; sometimes we didn't. Since the kids have been gone, however, we have worked on commission or been self employed and have paid for our own private insurance.

The reason that Reagan conservatives don't want the government to take over the health insurance industry is because that invariably drives up costs overall even when the feds put a limit on what they will pay and will invariably create less competency in the medical field when doctors and hospitals no longer have to compete for business.

A Reagan conservative doesn't want the govenrment doing ANYTHING that can be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

0 Replies

If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I know that our government is traditionally not very good at executing these things, and I have no great faith that they'll get better any time soon, but I've looked at this issue several different ways and I just can't come up with any other approach that would give the most people the minimal acceptable level of healthcare.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I know that our government is traditionally not very good at executing these things, and I have no great faith that they'll get better any time soon, but I've looked at this issue several different ways and I just can't come up with any other approach that would give the most people the minimal acceptable level of healthcare.

OK,now define "minimum acceptable level".

That phrase means something different to each person.
What is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you.

0 Replies

Right. That's the magic question and there's no way I can define it because it probably requires a lot of specifics. It's something that lawmakers or someone with the power to research and define it would have to come up with. But for me, any emergency care, prenatal and childhood basic care, things like that should be a basic minimum. Any kind of regular care that can prevent emergency care would keep costs down.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

After decades of planning and plotting through several administrations, when Medicare finally went into effect sometime I think in l965, I was working for a small hospital in the Texas Panhandle. The desk of the lady trained to handle the Medicare claims butted right up against mine, so I was quite aware of what was happening with that.

From Day 1 there was an increase in costs of certain medications and medical procedures because the government would pay the higher charges. From Day 1 there was blatant fraud because patients no longer saw and reviewed their bills. Doctors would wander up and down the halls, peek through the door at a sleeping patient, and write down a hospital visit without ever checking the patient or reviewing a chart. All sorts of unnecessary stuff was ordered for patients because Medicare would pay virtually anything. Charges denied by private insurance companies were just sort of shifted over to a medicare patient's bill because the government would never question it.

Did everybody do this? Of course not. But it was happening in our hospital in our teensy little town. And you can be darn sure that this was being multiplied all over the country. And it is this kind of thing that has pushed medical costs through the roof and keeps them going. It would not have happened, at least so badly, had all insurance remained private and was privately monitored by people who were in the business to make money and couldn't charge more than their competitors and hope to do that. And it wouldn't have happened so badly if lawsuits against the slightest mistake or misstep by doctors or hospitals had not become so lucrative.

I sure don't want all medical care taken over by the government. What we have administered by the government is quite bad enough thank you.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Right. That's the magic question and there's no way I can define it because it probably requires a lot of specifics. It's something that lawmakers or someone with the power to research and define it would have to come up with. But for me, any emergency care, prenatal and childhood basic care, things like that should be a basic minimum. Any kind of regular care that can prevent emergency care would keep costs down.

Thats logical.
Now,what about those that are transgender.
Wouldnt they have a right to consider "minimum acceptable level" as any medical treatment related to their specific medical problems?

Also,should drug addicts have the right to consider "minimum acceptable level" any treatment related to their voluntary drug addiction?

Now,what about veterans?
Shouldnt they have a right to "minimum acceptable level" care that includes any care for any service connected injuries or illnesses?

You see the problem.

"Minimum acceptable level" means something different to every person.

What about people that are involved in seriously risky hobbies,like skydiving,spelunking,bungee jumping,car racing,etc.
Should "minimum acceptable level" allow for treatment of injuries sustained in an activity that is by its very nature dangerous to life and limb?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I know that our government is traditionally not very good at executing these things, and I have no great faith that they'll get better any time soon, but I've looked at this issue several different ways and I just can't come up with any other approach that would give the most people the minimal acceptable level of healthcare.

OK,now define "minimum acceptable level".

That phrase means something different to each person.
What is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you.

I have been without any insurance for th past 3 years, a simple dr's apponitnent had cost me $260 Just to renew my prescriptions, had I had an insurance card it would have been $40.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If a guarantee could be made that a national heathcare plan would give me the same benefits I have now, at the price i am paying now, I would be all for it. I have no problem with everyone having healthcare, but I fear the government beaurocracy that would destroy healthcare in America through bloated budgets, poor execution and lack of experience.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I know that our government is traditionally not very good at executing these things, and I have no great faith that they'll get better any time soon, but I've looked at this issue several different ways and I just can't come up with any other approach that would give the most people the minimal acceptable level of healthcare.

OK,now define "minimum acceptable level".

That phrase means something different to each person.
What is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you.
I have been without any insurance for th past 3 years, a simple dr's apponitnent had cost me $260 Just to renew my prescriptions, had I had an insurance card it would have been $40.

Do you not have insurance by choice?
If you choose to not have insurance,then you haver only yourself to blame.

Why should I or the taxpayers be expected to foot the bill for your bad choice in life?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I have been without any insurance for th past 3 years, a simple dr's apponitnent had cost me $260 Just to renew my prescriptions, had I had an insurance card it would have been $40.

We've gone without health insurance (family of 4, both children under 4 at the time) and I have to say I think we saved money. We also paid more than $200 for visits -- those vaccines are damned expensive. But I found that you can pay doctors $10 a month with no interest and they don't complain as long as you pay something. Also, all that we paid was still a lot cheaper than the $580 monthly premiums we paid when we did have insurance.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know