Fixing Healthcare

[Kenanator]

Originally Posted by clemgrad85

...Obama and his socialistic ideas and Czars)

So Who Had The First "Czars"??

That would be Richard Millhouse Nixon

William Simon: the nation’s first energy czar, appointed by Richard Nixon after the oil price spike of 1973. In his autobiography, Simon said Nixon “announced to the Cabinet that I was to have ‘absolute authority’ and compared the job he was giving me with the role that Albert Speer played in the Third Reich when he was put in charge of German armaments.” He went on to serve as Treasury Secretary under Nixon and Gerald Ford. He was succeeded by …

John Sawhill: considered the country’s second energy czar. Some historians note that Sawhill never achieved the stature in the White House that he sought, in part because he was dealing with rivals: Interior Secretary Rogers Morton and Treasury’s William Simon.

GHW Bush Czar example:

DRUG CZAR

William J. Bennett: Had the drug czar title in 1989 under the first President George Bush. He had been secretary of education and was always a controversial figure, even in conservative circles. Known for his effort to kick a cigarette habit and his affinity for gambling, Bennett came under criticism in his first year as head of drug policy for clamping down on drugs but not aggressively tackling alcohol and nicotine addiction. His post was subject to Senate confirmation.

Clinton Czar example:

HEALTH CZAR

Ira Magaziner: this technically oriented White House aide in the Clinton administration was known as health czar for the newly elected Bill Clinton. But he found his profile eclipsed by the emergence of a more powerful health czarina, Hillary Clinton, who directed the White House Health Care Task Force. Clinton and Magaziner’s attempt to pass a health reform plan without the close involvement of Congress generated criticism and provided a lasting lesson that the Obama White House says it has absorbed. After Clinton’s health effort fizzled, Magaziner assumed the title of White House technology czar.


GW Bush Czar example:

HOMELAND SECURITY CZAR

Tom Ridge: The Pennsylvania governor was named to this post after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He headed a new White House Office of Homeland Security but found it frustrating because he had limited staff and legal authority. President George W. Bush in 2003 successfully urged Congress to create a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security; Ridge became the huge agency’s first secretary.


Here is a list Presidents from Nixon to Obama/the years they held office/the number of czars/the number of appointees

Richard Nixon/1969-1974/2/4

Gerald Ford/1974-1977/1/1

Jimmy Carter/1977-1981/2/3

Ronald Reagan/1981-1989/1/1

George H. W. Bush/1989-1993/2/3

Bill Clinton/1993-2001/6/9

George W. Bush/2001-2009/35/45

Barack Obama/2009- tbd/32/34


So who again had the most Czar's and Appointees?

Where was the outrage then??

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

No. What is wrong is that if your insurance coverage had included out-patient PT, you would have been instructed where you were approved to receive it and how many treatment visits you were approved for. Your clinical outcome, with coverage, is highly determined by your insurance provider.

Only if your purchased a policy that had those features. If you choose a policy without "preferred providers". A point-of-service policy allows you to go anywhere.

This is why I don't like policies tied to an employer. Let us shop (even on the internet-nationwide) for our policies. Let the employer pay a higher salary to make up for the benefit. Or, put the money in a medical savings account and let us spend it on the policy we choose.

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by Kenanator

So Who Had The First "Czars"??

That would be Richard Millhouse Nixon

Actually, that would be FDR he had 12

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Kenanator

So Who Had The First "Czars"??

According to the Wikipedia article posted previously, FDR.

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

Only if your purchased a policy that had those features. If you choose a policy without "preferred providers". A point-of-service policy allows you to go anywhere.

A standard-issue 80/20 (or very similar) healthcare policy, which is the most cost effective and the most carried, would reflect the scenario I described. Going out of network, and especially going to a POS would leave a customer with little to no savings compared to walking in from the street, yet still be required to maintain their policy.

This still has nothing to do with the relationship between the administration of healthcare as directed by one's insurance carrier and your clinical outcomes. Those who "deliver" care are only obeying the terms of your policy.

This is why I don't like policies tied to an employer. Let us shop (even on the internet-nationwide) for our policies. Let the employer pay a higher salary to make up for the benefit. Or, put the money in a medical savings account and let us spend it on the policy we choose.

What you propose here will not gain any traction with Republicans or Democrats. The US Chamber of Commerce would love to place attack ads against your plan as well.

Originally Posted by Kenanator

SNIP

George W. Bush/2001-2009/35/45

Barack Obama/2009- tbd/32/34

So who again had the most Czar's and Appointees?

Where was the outrage then??

Actually, Wikipedia lists 14 Czar Jobs for President Bush (43) with 17 Appointees, not 35/45.

Not sure where the difference is between where you are getting your numbers and where wikipedia is. However, one is incorrect.

I'd be happy to say that Government is bloated way beyond what it needs to be. In fact--I would strongly recommend merging various Cabinet-level organizations as well.

There is no reason to have a "Czar" when those duties can rightfully be included in another existing department. Regardless of what you call them--these people all need to be accountable to some form of checks and balances unless they are purely advisers to the President. If they create policies or have budgets of their own, they need to be subject to oversight.

KAM

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

Those who "deliver" care are only obeying the terms of your policy.....

.....What you propose here will not gain any traction with Republicans or Democrats. The US Chamber of Commerce would love to place attack ads against your plan as well.

The policy I chose, ONLY covers in-patient care, or anything related to in-patient treatment. It does not cover doctors office visits, prescription drugs, etc. I pay all that myself. But, I save about $600 per month in premiums and I am covered if I have that catastrophic illness that I couldn't afford.

But, wouldn't it be nice if you had a policy that you could take anywhere you go, regardless of your employer. I know someone in a dead-end job that he hates, but he can't quit because he would lose his insurance and since he has cancer he has to put up with it. This is the kind of insurance reform we need. Make policies portable. COBRA is not the answer.

[Kenanator]

Originally Posted by clemgrad85

I don't get this arguement....to me....socialism is the transfer of wealth. I don't think paving roads and such is a transfer of wealth. Oh sure, the money is paid to people for these services, but they are working for it. I just don't follow this logic.

Besides, many of these services that are always used as examples of socialism are handled by the states via Amendment 10 of the Constitution.

So money from our taxes to pay for roads is OK, but money from our taxes to pay for health care is SOCIALISM?!?!? How is it "redistributing wealth"? Do the unemployed not drive on our highways?

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

The policy I chose, ONLY covers in-patient care, or anything related to in-patient treatment. It does not cover doctors office visits, prescription drugs, etc. I pay all that myself. But, I save about $600 per month in premiums and I am covered if I have that catastrophic illness that I couldn't afford.

How does your policy handle MRI/CT and labs when your MD orders them on an out-patient basis to investigate symptoms of disease? Or, are you playing Russian roulette because you're still relatively young?

But, wouldn't it be nice if you had a policy that you could take anywhere you go, regardless of your employer. I know someone in a dead-end job that he hates, but he can't quit because he would lose his insurance and since he has cancer he has to put up with it. This is the kind of insurance reform we need. Make policies portable. COBRA is not the answer.

Portability is exactly what is under serious consideration and is tied to support for the public option as 2 of the absolutes which must be included when signed into law, but is being met with brickwalls by Republicans who are in the pocket of the insurance industry and "business", in general.

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by Kenanator

So money from our taxes to pay for roads (which are for everyone) is OK, but money from our taxes to pay for health care (which is for an individual) is SOCIALISM?!?!? How is it "redistributing wealth"? Do the unemployed not drive on our highways?

Are you serious? Do you not understand the differences here?

If you are serious, there is no use explaining it would be over your head.

Originally Posted by Kenanator

So money from our taxes to pay for roads is OK, but money from our taxes to pay for health care is SOCIALISM?!?!? How is it "redistributing wealth"? Do the unemployed not drive on our highways?

Perhaps this example will demonstrate the differences between roads and healthcare.

Individuals cannot establish a system of roads, which are for GENERAL public use. Similarly, Individuals cannot protect the Nation from Foreign enemies. Thus we have government coordinate this--and we pay for it with our tax dollars.

Individuals can seek, obtain and pay for their own health care. It is an individual need, not a public need. Just the same as food, and shelter are vital needs--for every individual, but given that we are free citizens, we obtain this on our own.

Obviously, there are poor people who cannot afford...well much of anything--including food, and shelter as well as medicine. This doesn't transform the nature of these things.

Likening individual healthcare to roads is in my view a very inaccurate comparison.

KAM

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

How does your policy handle MRI/CT and labs when your MD orders them on an out-patient basis to investigate symptoms of disease? Or, are you playing Russian roulette because you're still relatively young?

It does cover MRI/CT at 80% It does also cover an annual wellness screening (as required by law. I wouldn't mind even saving more premium and covering my own checkups). Thanks for your guess on my age, but I am in the oldest age group that can still purchase health insurance.

Portability is exactly what is under serious consideration and is tied to support for the public option as 2 of the absolutes which must be included when signed into law, but is being met with brickwalls by Republicans who are in the pocket of the insurance industry and "business", in general.

You can have portability without a government option. A government option would turn into government only because insurance companies can't compete with a blank checkbook. and I don't want my kids to shoulder the burden of covering all those blank checks.

[Kenanator]

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
So money from our taxes to pay for roads (which are for everyone) is OK, but money from our taxes to pay for health care (which is for an individual) is SOCIALISM?!?!? How is it "redistributing wealth"? Do the unemployed not drive on our highways?

Are you serious? Do you not understand the differences here?

If you are serious, there is no use explaining it would be over your head.

How is a health care system designed to be funded by taxes, for the use of EVERYONE, "for an individual?"

BTW... Thanks for resorting to personal insults rather than just answering my question....

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

It does cover MRI/CT at 80%

Out-patient MRI/CT/labs tests at 80% without out-patient coverage?

It does also cover an annual wellness screening (as required by law. I wouldn't mind even saving more premium and covering my own checkups). Thanks for your guess on my age, but I am in the oldest age group that can still purchase health insurance.

"..oldest age group that can still purchase .."? Through your employer?

You can have portability without a government option. A government option would turn into government only because insurance companies can't compete with a blank checkbook. and I don't want my kids to shoulder the burden of covering all those blank checks.

You, and your kids, are already shouldering the cost, with a blank checkbook, of treating the uninsured, as well as subsidizing under-performing insurance companies where clinical outcomes are concerned. Those hospital readmissions always add a new column of digits to the cost.

Originally Posted by Kenanator

How is a health care system designed to be funded by taxes, for the use of EVERYONE, "for an individual?"

BTW... Thanks for resorting to personal insults rather than just answering my question....

Let me take another shot at this.

Building a road is not giving something to an individual, even though individuals might use it.

Giving someone food, shelter or medical care is providing something specifically to an individual.

Do you see the inherent difference between government building a road, and handing you a loaf of bread?

You seem to be equating all spending a government might undertake as having the same nature.

KAM

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by Kenanator

How is a health care system designed to be funded by taxes, for the use of EVERYONE, "for an individual?"

BTW... Thanks for resorting to personal insults rather than just answering my question....

The health care system was not DESIGNED to be funded by taxes.

BTW...Sorry if you were offended, I assumed you did know the difference. My mistake.

Isn't it very important for everyone to have transportation, how about a house, food, a good job, etc. Should we be providing that also? Sure, we have food stamps, housing allowances, buses, etc. (and Medicaid). But really, shouldn't we also make sure EVERYONE is happy with a good car, house, etc. I remember reading somewhere about a "pursuit of happiness"

After all, wasn't it one of our founding fathers that said "From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their needs" would be the foundation of our country?

[Technologic 2]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

Out-patient MRI/CT/labs tests at 80% without out-patient coverage?
"..oldest age group that can still purchase .."? Through your employer?

Late 50s - I'm self employed (so I still pay over $700/mo) CAT covered even on outpatient



You, and your kids, are already shouldering the cost, with a blank checkbook, of treating the uninsured, as well as subsidizing under-performing insurance companies where clinical outcomes are concerned. Those hospital readmissions always add a new column of digits to the cost.

You are very right here. And again if you refer to the very 1st post of this thread I addressed cost shifting and I think it should be illegal. I don't understand what you are talking about with the "underperforming insurance companies where clinical outcomes are concerned"

[davidra]

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

The health care system was not DESIGNED to be funded by taxes.

What you really mean is that our current health care system wasn't designed to be funded by taxes. To some extent that happened by accident, as did the fact that we ended up having employers pay for their employee's health care. Have you ever stopped to consider why that is the case? Why do we separate out health insurance? One would think we could just increase their salary and let them buy it, right? If you think about it, you'll see why that might not work out in terms of making sure you have an adequate number of employees. Arguing for everyone to have the right to not have insurance only works when you are willing to refuse to treat someone with a serious illness because they chose not to buy insurance. And society is not willing to do that, thankfully.

First, I would not even accept the statement that we have a health care system. We have a non-system. Second, you point out the perfect reason why we need a completely changed health care system that is designed to be funded by taxes....at least a portion of it.

[Kenanator]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Perhaps this example will demonstrate the differences between roads and healthcare.

Individuals cannot establish a system of roads, which are for GENERAL public use. Similarly, Individuals cannot protect the Nation from Foreign enemies. Thus we have government coordinate this--and we pay for it with our tax dollars.

Individuals can seek, obtain and pay for their own health care. It is an individual need, not a public need. Just the same as food, and shelter are vital needs--for every individual, but given that we are free citizens, we obtain this on our own.

Obviously, there are poor people who cannot afford...well much of anything--including food, and shelter as well as medicine. This doesn't transform the nature of these things.

Likening individual healthcare to roads is in my view a very inaccurate comparison.

KAM

So it just boils down to "precedence"? "The government has always provided its people with tax funded roads so that is OK. The government has never provided its people with tax funded health care so to start now is bad?

[Technologic 2]

Kenanator, Read KAM1138's post again. It is very good. It does not even suggest this is by "precedence" Read it again. There is a BIG difference in Roads vs Healthcare.