Destroying Healthcare in America

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by Jaer57

Not at all. I simply do not trust the current plan of a massive implementation to improve the healthcare system. I'm also not trying to polarize this issue; there is plenty or room for many points of view.

That leads me to my view on this debate; I would rather see this debate at the state level, and have each state come up with a government plan. There could be federal oversight or even intervention when things go wrong. I don't know the right answer to solving healthcare issues, but I am pretty sure that most of our politicians don't either. In this way, we could see what actually works and what doesn't, or at least have some real studies to guage what direction we go in.

However, since there is not consensus in how to implement such systems, it seems extremely risky to implement something on this scale without any real case studies. People refer to foreign countries all the time as the case studies, but most of these countries don't have our population and diversity. Some of these countries would better compare to a state rather than the whole U.S. What works for California isn't necessarily going to work for Texas, Rhode Island, Georgia, etc.

I guess all my argument boils down to is, lets slow down, and do this right from the bottom up, not the top down...

Your State argument is fine, Howard Dean did a fine job in Vermont, HOWEVER, on a purely Bulk purchase economics model a Federal Insurance plane works better.

[ryleyinstl]

I think one of the big issues is that the average American just simply doesn't care about the 50 million people that don't have access to quality healthcare. You have to find a problem with the way things are before you see any reason to change it.

[Jaer57]

Originally Posted by daThomas

Your State argument is fine, Howard Dean did a fine job in Vermont, HOWEVER, on a purely Bulk purchase economics model a Federal Insurance plane works better.

I hear you say that, but as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What backs up that statement? Have there been federal studies that come to that conclusion? I've heard that it's "common sense" and "obvious", but is it? Is there actually a "model"? If so, where is it? I want to see it; I want experts to review it. I want pundits to talk about it. I want doctors and patients to see it. That's all I want before we do ANYTHING...

[palandri]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Of course, I'm misled, false and "caught up in catch phrases"...after all, I disagree with you.

I'm sure our current system is terrific - I'm certain that the 15% of Louisiana's population just choose to be uninsured.

Here' an interactive map showing uninsured workers by state. It looks like New Mexico has the highest percent of uninsured workers at 28.1%

U.S. Uninsured Workers | Cover the Uninsured

Louisiana is 26.8%

1 out of 4 is really high!

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by Jaer57

Is there actually a "model"? If so, where is it? I want to see it; I want experts to review it. I want pundits to talk about it. I want doctors and patients to see it. That's all I want before we do ANYTHING...

Ummmmmm, Medicare and Medicaid come to mind.

[Jaer57]

Originally Posted by daThomas

Ummmmmm, Medicare and Medicaid come to mind.

I really hope that's a joke!

Anyways, I got to run; good discussion everyone! Keep sounding off; it's always good to hear everyone's point of view...

[Presprit]

The problem with reforming the American healthcare system is that it's underlying principle (e.g. employer based insurance; insurance, provider and delivery system based on profit making and individual good) are in direct conflict with the stated goal (insure maximum people, lower costs, maximum choice). On top of it people are not aware of the real cost of insurance or healthcare, tort laws and increased costs due to liability, and how healthcare costs is leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the country.

It is futile to argue how to achieve the goals that conflict with the underlying principles. Underlying principles is matter of politics and personal belief. Unless there is a broad agreement on the underlying principles of the healthcare, there is no way to agree on how it should be achieved.

Everyone agrees the system is broken, but at an individual level most people don't face any problems. Unless they have to navigate the complex and costly healthcare system due to illness. Especially critical illness. Naturally that is not possible and also very basis of insurance is that most won't fall ill at same time. So at any given time there may be only a minority of people who face the real problems in the heathcare system. For the rest it is just matter of debate, jocking their political and philosophical beliefs, and arguing over one of multi variables of current system or any proposed reform.

To simplify all the debate into a single sentence I think the argument boils down to who is better at playing god with my health - the "inefficient" government or the "profit-driven" private sector. Lets not kid ourselves that no matter where you stand and however fervent individual-good-over-greater-good believer you are, in either place, someone else (bureaucrat or insurance employee) other than you is having a major say on your health. The question then is who is lesser evil of the two

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Of course, I'm misled, false and "caught up in catch phrases"...after all, I disagree with you.

Non sequitur. I never said you were misled or false. I said you were presenting a false dichotomy in the form of a catch phrase. Don't assume you disagree with me substantially just because I disagree with a certain manner of presentation. I don't think our current system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm not convinced that the current administration is going to propose a system that's any better. Seems that they are trying to keep details close to the vest until the last possible minute. That suggests they fear the reaction to those proposals, or perhaps have not yet fully formed them.

I'm sure our current system is terrific - I'm certain that the 15% of Louisiana's population just choose to be uninsured.

Again with the false dichotomies. I'm sure that not all of them have chosen it. I'm also sure that all of them would relish a truly free insurance system. However, TANSTAAFL. I'm relatively sure that 15% of the people in my subdivision are uninsured. There are probably different reasons for all of them, and yes, many of them by choice.

[ryleyinstl]

Originally Posted by Presprit

Lets not kid ourselves that no matter where you stand and however fervent individual-good-over-greater-good believer you are, in either place, someone else (bureaucrat or insurance employee) other than you is having a major say on your health. The question then is who is lesser evil of the two

True...so why are Americans not interested in designing a system where you (the individual) have the major say on your personal healthcare while still providing a good level of care to all citizens??

[zhackwyatt]

Originally Posted by daThomas

So you would like to privatize fire fighters? Maybe by KBR? They come out to your burning house with a bill to be pre-paid before they turn on their hoses, cause it is all about personal accountability.

Don't be dramatic. I don't want to necessarily pay for someone who is playing with matches in an attic with highly combustible insulation.

Like I said you have to start w/ promoting good health first, and giving out free health care is not an incentive. We will end up paying for people because they got an itch on their nose.

It comes down to wealth redistribution. Rich pay for the poor, so the poor can stay poor.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by zhackwyatt

Like I said you have to start w/ promoting good health first, and giving out free health care is not an incentive. We will end up paying for people because they got an itch in their nose.

It comes down to wealth redistribution. Rich pay for the poor, so the poor can stay poor.

Actually your statement on this is 180 degrees off reality. By providing preventative care you avoid the situation of a person waiting until they are acutely ill and presenting at an ER. That's exactly a huge part of the current problem with the existing system.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Oh you bet I do...that's what makes USA health care even more of a stymie.

How so?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by daThomas

So you would like to privatize fire fighters? Maybe by KBR? They come out to your burning house with a bill to be pre-paid before they turn on their hoses, cause it is all about personal accountability.

You do realize that there are places where fire fighters are not government employees, right? Equipment, training, and maintenance are paid for by a taxing district (usually property-tax based), and the actual fire fighters are volunteers who live in the community.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by palandri

Here' an interactive map showing uninsured workers by state. It looks like New Mexico has the highest percent of uninsured workers at 28.1%

U.S. Uninsured Workers | Cover the Uninsured

Louisiana is 26.8%

1 out of 4 is really high!

Those statistics don't show how many of those uninsured get health care through some sort of private arrangement. I know all sorts of people that still work barter systems for all they're worth. You'd be surprised what you can get for a couple ice chests of shrimp or crawfish.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Micael

How about a mix?

Not likely in the political client of the moment. They're more interested in righting perceived wrongs against themselves rather than coming up with reasoned proposals to benefit the real public good.

[gdbaker65]

Originally Posted by Micael

I propose that we leave the system pretty much alone, and look for ways to reduce wastes and abuse.... for instance, tort reform. The insurance that doctors have to carry is out of control. We could effect a huge reduction in medical overhead right there.

Agreed

[bclinger]

Bunches of places do this. Makes more sense - local control.

Originally Posted by Toby

You do realize that there are places where fire fighters are not government employees, right? Equipment, training, and maintenance are paid for by a taxing district (usually property-tax based), and the actual fire fighters are volunteers who live in the community.

[bclinger]

I disagree. Why should I go to a doctor, take his/her time when nothing is wrong? Does not make sense at all.

Originally Posted by daThomas

Actually your statement on this is 180 degrees off reality. By providing preventative care you avoid the situation of a person waiting until they are acutely ill and presenting at an ER. That's exactly a huge part of the current problem with the existing system.

[drfrog]

imho insurance companies are primarily at fault in this mess....as is greed for profit at the expense of people who often cannot pay....yet need help above and be
yond OTC remedies...I am afraid too much govt intervention would be a disaster .......

[bclinger]

and I for one believe that since the government is seriously in debt for both Medicaid/Medicare/VA, et cetera, what makes anyone thinks it can handle health care for everyone any better. Cannot and there is nothing to support its ability to do so. In addition, with the government involved, the playing field is nothing close to being level Government sets the rules; government prints money whenever it needs it.

Originally Posted by Presprit

The problem with reforming the American healthcare system is that it's underlying principle (e.g. employer based insurance; insurance, provider and delivery system based on profit making and individual good) are in direct conflict with the stated goal (insure maximum people, lower costs, maximum choice). On top of it people are not aware of the real cost of insurance or healthcare, tort laws and increased costs due to liability, and how healthcare costs is leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the country.

It is futile to argue how to achieve the goals that conflict with the underlying principles. Underlying principles is matter of politics and personal belief. Unless there is a broad agreement on the underlying principles of the healthcare, there is no way to agree on how it should be achieved.

Everyone agrees the system is broken, but at an individual level most people don't face any problems. Unless they have to navigate the complex and costly healthcare system due to illness. Especially critical illness. Naturally that is not possible and also very basis of insurance is that most won't fall ill at same time. So at any given time there may be only a minority of people who face the real problems in the heathcare system. For the rest it is just matter of debate, jocking their political and philosophical beliefs, and arguing over one of multi variables of current system or any proposed reform.

To simplify all the debate into a single sentence I think the argument boils down to who is better at playing god with my health - the "inefficient" government or the "profit-driven" private sector. Lets not kid ourselves that no matter where you stand and however fervent individual-good-over-greater-good believer you are, in either place, someone else (bureaucrat or insurance employee) other than you is having a major say on your health. The question then is who is lesser evil of the two