The last time I looked, LSD was not legal and it appears that all of the authors are on some type of hallucinogenic.
If you want to bring down the cost of health care to similar GDP as other industrialized countries, then look at what they are doing. Our existing program is not working. [What is interesting is that the US help design Western Europe’s health System after WWII.]
I am a small employer with less than a generous plan and the annual premium is $17,000 (single rate $42,000 family). I have averaged a 25% rate increase each in the last 5 years. Waiting to see what the coming year will be.
What we are doing is not working.
Maybe someone needs to look at the whole picture – too many people stuffing themselves with fast food & sodas, etc. Big Pharma now more interested in profit than caring for people, Big Hospitals too Too bad alot of good caring professionals get caught in the middle. Given this, the Democratic plan sounds like it has the right idea. Eliminating alot of unnecessary medicating and surgery would go a long way toward cutting costs and keeping people healthier.
How do you stop people from stuffing themselves with fast food & soda? What do you do with evil “Big Pharma” for making a profit? Who decides what medication and surgery are “unnecessary?”
It sounds like your solution involves BIG Government dictating our diets, running the pharmaceutical industry and making medical decisions.
So, Jane, you’re saying our problems are based around cheeseburgers, fries, and soda? The government has the right to tell people what to eat? Better not let them know how many breaths you take in a day…they’ll start telling you how to breathe, too.
No, but I think they can suggest which choices are healthy and which ones aren’t. Then, allow you to make the choice how fast you are going to eat/drink/smoke yourself to death. Seriously, what is wrong with a private or public agency drawing awareness to unhealthy lifestyles? No one is stopping you from eating McDonald’s every day. But, they are advising against that type of diet and have the facts to back it. Take that information and you decide how often you’ll visit the golden arches.
Health care has always been a suggestion and there are thousands of uninsured people in this country. Without a mandate, how are we going to ensure everyone receives adequate health care? All in all, it costs society much more by not doing so.
August 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm
ned says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There are 2 issues here – healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing. Anyone who goes to an emergency room will get healthcare regardless if they have insurance.
There are many problems with the healthcare and insurance systems and most of them would be better solved with LESS government, not more. Insurance would be a lot cheaper if govenment didn’t mandate coverage for services I don’t want – mental health, sex change, birth control.
A core problem that I see is that the consumer is so far removed from the cost. If you have insurance, you don’t pay the provider and if you have insurance through your employer, you don’t even pay the insurance premium (at least not all of it). So when you get healthcare, you don’t care or even know how much it costs.
How are we going to ensure everyone receives adequate health care? How does taxing someone who doesn’t buy insurance because he can’t afford it give him adequate healthcare?
August 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I disagree that the Democrats are mandating you can’t go to McDonald’s. I disagree anyone is “taking away our freedom.” That is “American History X” talk. If you disagree with that, watch the film.
August 7, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Ralph Kramden says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well geez…I feel like I just got a spanking from you, Captain Planet Sir. If only I had all of the knowledge that you just gave me BEFORE I had that Big Mac. My bad. Seriously though..are you really OK with the government telling you what you can and cannot eat or do? REALLY??? Because if that’s the case, turn your TV on and check out what’s going on in Syria…and Iran…and many other countries, as well. I for one will fight to the death before any government is going to tell me what to eat, when to eat it, and how much of it to eat.
Time to get the Democrat & Republican politicians out of the picture. No new solutions will come from the politicians. A committee comprised of heathcare professionals should come together and develope a comprehensive plan to address the various issues
Hear me now, believe me later. Neither program will EVER work the way we want as both sides will continually blame the other, which means neither party will ever have the entire plan they want on the shelf for the people. I don’t believe either party really wants their full plan available either. When it doesn’t work, they won’t be able to blame the other guy.
If Obamacare doesn’t work, he will blame Bush. Watch and see. He will say Bush took the last aspirin out of the pantry.
If Romneycare (or whatever they will call it) doesn’t work, the Republicans will pull an Obama and say they inherited a mess that makes it impossible for their system to work.
Pick your party. Both will fail and the consumer (us) will be left with coverages that aren’t paid for and we’ll end up paying out of pocket. You know who will win? The SAME people that always do. The willingly unemployed (lazy) who want something for nothing. We will go to work, pay taxes, and still end up paying for things that they will never pay for.
I say we do what Vlad Tepes did. That sure changed the welfare system in his country. :)
Health care is a financial issue and the current House of Representatives are in a stalemate. Yes, there are a few members who work across the isle but the higher up the pecking order you go, the more polarized the issue of healthcare becomes. Maybe they could better together if their terms in office was 4 years instead of 2 which would lessen the need to play to their constituents.
Yes, we don’t want our representatives listening to us (playing to their constituents) because they know so much better what’s good for us than we know ourselves. Let’s give them lifetime terms so they can do whatever they want without giving “we the people” a second thought.
Our system of govenment was purposely designed to make it difficult to change things because government is not the solution!
You poor brain-washed liberal. Do you really have so much faith in your government as to think that they actually want to help you?? Wow. Blind Faith. Thanks, Libby…you have given me the true meaning of what that is. And, to answer your silly question, a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE is the solution! Something that this regime has so conveniently ignored.
I didn’t say we didn’t need government. It has its purpose but it has already inserted itself too much in healthcare/insurance. Perhaps it has a role in helping those who absolutely cannot afford it but that role always seems to grow which is why I lean against it.
The solution is in individual freedom and responsibility, private business initiative and innovation, and charity. My thought would be to move away from the employer provided insurance system to a more robust individual market where people can decide what benefits to buy based on needs and affordability. If they want a Cadillac plan that covers everything, they can pay the premium for that. If they want bare bones, they can buy catastrophic coverage and pay for routine visits out of pocket. If they truly can’t afford anything, charity such as free clinics or, as a last resort, government could step in.
This is one possible direction but more government is a bad idea. I’m loath to yield my freedom for security. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
If more individual choice in healthcare would increase competition and drive pricing down, I would agree with that. But what about the amount the employer subsidizes by offering healthcare? If that goes away, there is no way individuals could afford to buy it on their own. The price is out of control.
August 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm
ned says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Theoretically, employers would increase salaries by the amount that they save on health insurance keeping employees in the same financial position.
In addition to increased competition in the individual market, if government removed mandates for specific coverage, people could buy only what they want/need. No need for a single, well adjusted male to pay for mamogram/birth control/mental health/… coverage.
August 8, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s a good idea in theory. Not sure how it would work for those people that don’t have that bump from the employer and are not making enough to purchase coverage on their own. I’d have to think they would do that now, if they could. My brother and his wife are self-employed and while they make enough to provide for their family of 4 (mortgage, food, insurance, school expenses etc.), they do not have an additional $500 to $600 per month for health insurance. My brother ended up taking a job outside of his field just for the health insurance. Not everyone can do that. It’s a big problem with no easy solutions.
August 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No blind faith. Just a question to spur healthy conversation. Not a statement.
Interesting. Maybe both sides are not as polarized as it seems by this blog. All good ideas and we should move forward now rather than later.
The last time I looked, LSD was not legal and it appears that all of the authors are on some type of hallucinogenic.
If you want to bring down the cost of health care to similar GDP as other industrialized countries, then look at what they are doing. Our existing program is not working. [What is interesting is that the US help design Western Europe’s health System after WWII.]
I am a small employer with less than a generous plan and the annual premium is $17,000 (single rate $42,000 family). I have averaged a 25% rate increase each in the last 5 years. Waiting to see what the coming year will be.
What we are doing is not working.
I agree. But until both sides start working together on it, nothing is going to change for the better. That was the point I was making.
TORT REFORM?
Maybe someone needs to look at the whole picture – too many people stuffing themselves with fast food & sodas, etc. Big Pharma now more interested in profit than caring for people, Big Hospitals too Too bad alot of good caring professionals get caught in the middle. Given this, the Democratic plan sounds like it has the right idea. Eliminating alot of unnecessary medicating and surgery would go a long way toward cutting costs and keeping people healthier.
How do you stop people from stuffing themselves with fast food & soda? What do you do with evil “Big Pharma” for making a profit? Who decides what medication and surgery are “unnecessary?”
It sounds like your solution involves BIG Government dictating our diets, running the pharmaceutical industry and making medical decisions.
I’ll pass on that!
So, Jane, you’re saying our problems are based around cheeseburgers, fries, and soda? The government has the right to tell people what to eat? Better not let them know how many breaths you take in a day…they’ll start telling you how to breathe, too.
No, but I think they can suggest which choices are healthy and which ones aren’t. Then, allow you to make the choice how fast you are going to eat/drink/smoke yourself to death. Seriously, what is wrong with a private or public agency drawing awareness to unhealthy lifestyles? No one is stopping you from eating McDonald’s every day. But, they are advising against that type of diet and have the facts to back it. Take that information and you decide how often you’ll visit the golden arches.
Then you disagree with Jane that the Democrat plan is the right idea. Theirs is not suggestions but mandates.
Health care has always been a suggestion and there are thousands of uninsured people in this country. Without a mandate, how are we going to ensure everyone receives adequate health care? All in all, it costs society much more by not doing so.
There are 2 issues here – healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing. Anyone who goes to an emergency room will get healthcare regardless if they have insurance.
There are many problems with the healthcare and insurance systems and most of them would be better solved with LESS government, not more. Insurance would be a lot cheaper if govenment didn’t mandate coverage for services I don’t want – mental health, sex change, birth control.
A core problem that I see is that the consumer is so far removed from the cost. If you have insurance, you don’t pay the provider and if you have insurance through your employer, you don’t even pay the insurance premium (at least not all of it). So when you get healthcare, you don’t care or even know how much it costs.
How are we going to ensure everyone receives adequate health care? How does taxing someone who doesn’t buy insurance because he can’t afford it give him adequate healthcare?
I disagree that the Democrats are mandating you can’t go to McDonald’s. I disagree anyone is “taking away our freedom.” That is “American History X” talk. If you disagree with that, watch the film.
Well geez…I feel like I just got a spanking from you, Captain Planet Sir. If only I had all of the knowledge that you just gave me BEFORE I had that Big Mac. My bad. Seriously though..are you really OK with the government telling you what you can and cannot eat or do? REALLY??? Because if that’s the case, turn your TV on and check out what’s going on in Syria…and Iran…and many other countries, as well. I for one will fight to the death before any government is going to tell me what to eat, when to eat it, and how much of it to eat.
Time to get the Democrat & Republican politicians out of the picture. No new solutions will come from the politicians. A committee comprised of heathcare professionals should come together and develope a comprehensive plan to address the various issues
Best comment on here by far
Just read UCT post after that haha. Both right on point!
Hear me now, believe me later. Neither program will EVER work the way we want as both sides will continually blame the other, which means neither party will ever have the entire plan they want on the shelf for the people. I don’t believe either party really wants their full plan available either. When it doesn’t work, they won’t be able to blame the other guy.
If Obamacare doesn’t work, he will blame Bush. Watch and see. He will say Bush took the last aspirin out of the pantry.
If Romneycare (or whatever they will call it) doesn’t work, the Republicans will pull an Obama and say they inherited a mess that makes it impossible for their system to work.
Pick your party. Both will fail and the consumer (us) will be left with coverages that aren’t paid for and we’ll end up paying out of pocket. You know who will win? The SAME people that always do. The willingly unemployed (lazy) who want something for nothing. We will go to work, pay taxes, and still end up paying for things that they will never pay for.
I say we do what Vlad Tepes did. That sure changed the welfare system in his country. :)
@UCT – That may be the post of the year. LOL Amen brother!
Health care is a financial issue and the current House of Representatives are in a stalemate. Yes, there are a few members who work across the isle but the higher up the pecking order you go, the more polarized the issue of healthcare becomes. Maybe they could better together if their terms in office was 4 years instead of 2 which would lessen the need to play to their constituents.
Yes, we don’t want our representatives listening to us (playing to their constituents) because they know so much better what’s good for us than we know ourselves. Let’s give them lifetime terms so they can do whatever they want without giving “we the people” a second thought.
Our system of govenment was purposely designed to make it difficult to change things because government is not the solution!
If government is not the solution, what is? We can’t have a society with no government!
You poor brain-washed liberal. Do you really have so much faith in your government as to think that they actually want to help you?? Wow. Blind Faith. Thanks, Libby…you have given me the true meaning of what that is. And, to answer your silly question, a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE is the solution! Something that this regime has so conveniently ignored.
I didn’t say we didn’t need government. It has its purpose but it has already inserted itself too much in healthcare/insurance. Perhaps it has a role in helping those who absolutely cannot afford it but that role always seems to grow which is why I lean against it.
The solution is in individual freedom and responsibility, private business initiative and innovation, and charity. My thought would be to move away from the employer provided insurance system to a more robust individual market where people can decide what benefits to buy based on needs and affordability. If they want a Cadillac plan that covers everything, they can pay the premium for that. If they want bare bones, they can buy catastrophic coverage and pay for routine visits out of pocket. If they truly can’t afford anything, charity such as free clinics or, as a last resort, government could step in.
This is one possible direction but more government is a bad idea. I’m loath to yield my freedom for security. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
If more individual choice in healthcare would increase competition and drive pricing down, I would agree with that. But what about the amount the employer subsidizes by offering healthcare? If that goes away, there is no way individuals could afford to buy it on their own. The price is out of control.
Theoretically, employers would increase salaries by the amount that they save on health insurance keeping employees in the same financial position.
In addition to increased competition in the individual market, if government removed mandates for specific coverage, people could buy only what they want/need. No need for a single, well adjusted male to pay for mamogram/birth control/mental health/… coverage.
It’s a good idea in theory. Not sure how it would work for those people that don’t have that bump from the employer and are not making enough to purchase coverage on their own. I’d have to think they would do that now, if they could. My brother and his wife are self-employed and while they make enough to provide for their family of 4 (mortgage, food, insurance, school expenses etc.), they do not have an additional $500 to $600 per month for health insurance. My brother ended up taking a job outside of his field just for the health insurance. Not everyone can do that. It’s a big problem with no easy solutions.
No blind faith. Just a question to spur healthy conversation. Not a statement.