Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TWA772LR wrote:I apologize if you find this obnoxious, but with all the depressing topics in nonav lately, I figured the best thing to fix this is Dave Cheppelle.
BobPatterson wrote:TWA772LR wrote:I apologize if you find this obnoxious, but with all the depressing topics in nonav lately, I figured the best thing to fix this is Dave Cheppelle.
No apology required. That has to rank extremely high among all videos posted here.
Funny.
ltbewr wrote:Better would be a transition over the next 10 years to a hybrid health care and insurance plan, modeled in part by Medicare and the current ACA. My concept would be an expanded Medicaid, people paying premiums, co-pays and deductibles based on their income and place of residence. For those above certain incomes, like with Medicare, one could buy a private insurer policy for co-pays and deductibles. To fund the expanded Medicaid a fixed tax for employee and employer, as used with Social Security and for Medicaid as well as non-employment income would be assessed. Ban all TV/Radio ads and most marketing for prescription drugs. All doctors, hospitals and other medical service providers would have participate in the new program. There would be fair pricing of drugs and services. Government programs to fund medical education including for doctors, nurses, technical specialists to make it so no or manageable debt from school loans. I would also have comprehensive health and sexual responsibility education, discourage the marketing of 'bad' foods and encourage 'good' foods as well as encourage exercise.
BobPatterson wrote:That, of course, means taxing everyone, individuals and businesses, sufficiently to pay the costs.
wingman wrote:This brief story may not link due to subscription restrictions but anyone that is interested in the topic should read it. It easily dispels the silly knee jerk names most GOP operatives attach to Canadian or Euro healthcare schemes and shows the many options we have in fixing our broken, bloated and costly US system. Bottom line, the healthcare itself need not be "socialized", just the insurance for those that need or qualify for it. In most countries in our "league", private doctors and private insurance exist side by side with government-mandated programs. And in each of these countries, every single last one, people pay less and live longer, healthier lives. They pay less for more, and I can't think of a more capitalist, republican, American or freedom fries-loving outcome than that. It ain't socialism, it's just smarter and better.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... n-be-found
B777LRF wrote:Here's another option: Go to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden. Bring a xerox copier, borrow the text, copy, implement, raise taxes to pay for it. Job jobbed.
moo wrote:BobPatterson wrote:That, of course, means taxing everyone, individuals and businesses, sufficiently to pay the costs.
I did the math a few months ago for a different discussion elsewhere, and surprisingly enough the US *already* pays more for Medicare and Medicaid per head of population in the US (so, everyone in the US, not just those covered by those two plans) than the UK pays for its NHS per head of UK population.
So the UK pays $x per-head-of-population and everyone is covered by the NHS. The US pays > $x per-head-of-population and only a portion of that population is covered by Medicare and Medicaid.
Very eye opening!
I'm at a conference atm, but I will find the figures if you are interested.
ltbewr wrote:Better would be a transition over the next 10 years to a hybrid health care and insurance plan, modeled in part by Medicare and the current ACA. My concept would be an expanded Medicaid, people paying premiums, co-pays and deductibles based on their income and place of residence. For those above certain incomes, like with Medicare, one could buy a private insurer policy for co-pays and deductibles. To fund the expanded Medicaid a fixed tax for employee and employer, as used with Social Security and for Medicaid as well as non-employment income would be assessed. Ban all TV/Radio ads and most marketing for prescription drugs. All doctors, hospitals and other medical service providers would have participate in the new program. There would be fair pricing of drugs and services. Government programs to fund medical education including for doctors, nurses, technical specialists to make it so no or manageable debt from school loans. I would also have comprehensive health and sexual responsibility education, discourage the marketing of 'bad' foods and encourage 'good' foods as well as encourage exercise.
Ken777 wrote:On the employer side I believe in the paying their share based on profits. That puts employers in a position of not having to consider the high costs of today's health care when having to reduce employee counts (which might lower the number of employees laid off ) or when looking at increasing employee counts - which might result in more employees brought on. When the numbers for moving production overseas is close enough it might also help keep production in the US as the cost of health care is taken out of the equation. Lastly it opens up funds traditionally spent on health care to be applied to R&D, new plant and/or equipment. In other words, growth. That should be a conservative's dream.
BobPatterson wrote:If employer funds traditionally spent for health care are redirected to R&D and capital outlays, then those funds are not available for health care benefits..
BobPatterson wrote:Employer share of health care should be considered a cost of employing people just as is employer share of FICA, Worker's Compensation Insurance, Unemployment Compensation Insurance and any other per capita employee cost..
BobPatterson wrote:Expecting employers to pay such costs only IF a business is profitable is nonsense. No other cost of production/operation is treated in that manner. A business pays its suppliers or it goes out of business. Employees are suppliers of labor. Pay them or go out of business..
BobPatterson wrote:It is possible, based on the experience of many countries, for the USA to reduce health care costs very substantially. THAT is the way to grant relief to businesses.
LAXintl wrote:Not only is it extremely expensive for society (they are trying to figure out ways how to cut it down), it leads to nothing more than government rationing and making health care decisions for you. One experience long waits, and the government decides what procedures and pharmaceuticals you can access. Most well to do Swedes as result now purchase supplemental private health care to ensure they have access to what they might need.
I happily opt for the open market system in US where on chooses and pays for benefits and services you desire.
DIRECTFLT wrote:Ronald Reagan weighs in on Socialized Medicine in America (From 1961, *not* from the grave...)
Ken777 wrote:DIRECTFLT wrote:Ronald Reagan weighs in on Socialized Medicine in America (From 1961, *not* from the grave...)
That was interesting as it was made a year before I graduated from high school 55 years ago. IIRC (and my brain is aged) the cost of a family medical plan. was under $80 a month and various hospitals would care for the indigent without complaint. I remember talking to a retired surgeon in the mid 70's who said that half his surgeries were done without compensation as the patients could not afford medical care.
Things are a bit different these days. Medical insurance keeps exploding in costs - to the point where a lot of people can only afford a policy with a $10K or $20K deduction. And if you can'y pay those "non-profit" hospitals toss you over to the debt collector. or fix you up with a credit card. The grand world of US medicine that Reagan talked about did not include the very poor or the people of color. And today's medical systems are basically a money grabber, with many patients placed down the list. Not the same as in Reagan's day.
Today the main issue is exploding costs and Medicaid For All is the only option for ending that.
salttee wrote:My idea to fix the healthcare system is for a fantasy congress (one that actually gets things done) appoint a commission of a dozen or less, experienced, successful businesspersons who have no conflicts of interest ie: no doctors, hospital administration types, drug industry executives, lawyers who have experience working in the healthcare industry or anyone else presently connected with the American healthcare industries.
DocLightning wrote:How is the nation's healthcare doing now that it's under the control of those "who might actually know anything about the industry and the challenges it faces" aka embedded special interest groups.salttee wrote:My idea to fix the healthcare system is for a fantasy congress (one that actually gets things done) appoint a commission of a dozen or less, experienced, successful businesspersons who have no conflicts of interest ie: no doctors, hospital administration types, drug industry executives, lawyers who have experience working in the healthcare industry or anyone else presently connected with the American healthcare industries.
So your plan is to take anyone who might actually know anything about the industry and the challenges it faces and...axe them?
Glad you aren't in charge.
LAXintl wrote:B777LRF wrote:Here's another option: Go to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden. Bring a xerox copier, borrow the text, copy, implement, raise taxes to pay for it. Job jobbed.
As a Scandinavian, I would never wish that system upon any body.
Not only is it extremely expensive for society (they are trying to figure out ways how to cut it down), it leads to nothing more than government rationing and making health care decisions for you. One experience long waits, and the government decides what procedures and pharmaceuticals you can access. Most well to do Swedes as result now purchase supplemental private health care to ensure they have access to what they might need.
I happily opt for the open market system in US where on chooses and pays for benefits and services you desire.
salttee wrote:...the current system of healthcare management by special interest groups works against the public good. But woe is the politician who would ever challenge the current system; instead, the politicians spend their time and energy manipulating the way to pay for the current wasteful system.
LAXintl wrote:B777LRF wrote:Here's another option: Go to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden. Bring a xerox copier, borrow the text, copy, implement, raise taxes to pay for it. Job jobbed.
As a Scandinavian, I would never wish that system upon any body.
Not only is it extremely expensive for society (they are trying to figure out ways how to cut it down), it leads to nothing more than government rationing and making
health care decisions for you. One experience long waits, and the government decides what procedures and pharmaceuticals you can access.
Most well to do Swedes as result now purchase supplemental private health care to ensure they have access to what they might need.
I happily opt for the open market system in US where on chooses and pays for benefits and services you desire.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country
but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:If you have a know heredity for a certain decease, then good luck finding an insurance.
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:A healthy population -> a productive population ->will provide towards the BNP (better productive for companies/employers) ->more tax income -
>investments into better health care/schools/infrastructure -> a productive population -> (and the circle continues).
AA747123 wrote:Whats wrong with going back to the way it was before Obama Care? You want health care? Go out, work hard, and get a job the provides health care benefits. I would go one step further and repeal the 1980's law that Reagan passed that requires hospitals to provide care for those who do not have insurance, thats is the cost side that needs to be addressed.
AA747123 wrote:Whats wrong with going back to the way it was before Obama Care? You want health care? Go out, work hard, and get a job the provides health care benefits. I would go one step further and repeal the 1980's law that Reagan passed that requires hospitals to provide care for those who do not have insurance, thats is the cost side that needs to be addressed.
apodino wrote:I have actually thought something like this is the way to go.
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:The British system is national while the Swedish system is a regional system (landsting or regions as some have started to call themselves).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_councils_of_Sweden
AA747123 wrote:Whats wrong with going back to the way it was before Obama Care? You want health care? Go out, work hard, and get a job the provides health care benefits. I would go one step further and repeal the 1980's law that Reagan passed that requires hospitals to provide care for those who do not have insurance, thats is the cost side that needs to be addressed.
AA747123 wrote:Whats wrong with going back to the way it was before Obama Care? You want health care? Go out, work hard, and get a job the provides health care benefits. I would go one step further and repeal the 1980's law that Reagan passed that requires hospitals to provide care for those who do not have insurance, thats is the cost side that needs to be addressed.
dtw2hyd wrote:Even single payer system is not going to fix unless cost side of the issue is addressed. Hospitals are gouging.
May be medical insurance companies should offer off-shore option to patients for major procedures. I suppose EK can offer round trip airfare, procedure and accommodation in Dubai/India for 1/10 of what hospitals charge here.
Tugger wrote:One of the other important things I like about this versus a national system is that you have more ability to test and try new or different things and see what works best in different situations. It reduces the "one size fits all" and monopoly effect of a notional system.
I agree that getting the more extreme members of either party on board will be a major obstacle but maybe it can be done. There will have to be some national standards that will need to match up with any state based solution but it could work very well.
Tugg
BobPatterson wrote:AA747123 wrote:Whats wrong with going back to the way it was before Obama Care? You want health care? Go out, work hard, and get a job the provides health care benefits. I would go one step further and repeal the 1980's law that Reagan passed that requires hospitals to provide care for those who do not have insurance, thats is the cost side that needs to be addressed.
1. Many jobs supply no health care benefits.
2. Many jobs that do supply some benefits are inadequate in coverage and/or contain huge deductibles and exclusions.
3. A significant percentage of the population cannot find a job.
4. A significant percentage of those who are employed (but without health insurance) are not paid enough to be able to purchase health insurance without subsidies.
What provision would you make to assist the uninsured and under-insured? Is there any room in your heart for your fellow man?