Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Hog1;569038]I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?[/quote]

In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569048]In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

[B]On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well[/B].[/quote]

Yes, very much so.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;569047]Pretty much. Instead of some fairyland fantasy utopia you should consider taking a long hard look at the real world. Seems like everyone else in this thread at least a has firm grasp on reality.[/quote]

I understand. You feel superior to me, and that satisfies your ego. Good for you. Keep on keepin' on, bro.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569056]I understand. You feel superior to me, and that satisfies your ego. Good for you. Keep on keepin' on, bro.[/quote]

I think I get your drift. You're basically saying that if we could let go of our desire for material things and creature comforts, we'd be able to afford healthcare a lot more easily.

But the guys are right, that's fantasy land. Everyone likes HDTVs, everyone likes IPhones, everyone likes to spend money to attend Redskins games or subscribe to DirecTV. That won't change. Only a small fraction of the population would ever think along your lines.

Believing in your line of thinking is one thing, but the only way you can truly change the world is if you "carry the room". Can your line of thinking relate to others, can you convince them? Human nature says not in this case.

It's a nice thought, but it's way out of touch with the way most people think. To think you could convince the world to adjust to this line of thinking shows you're detached from reality. And if you don't think people are capable of being convinced of this, then you're dreaming of the possibility, not thinking about a reality.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569048]In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well.[/quote]
If I'm correct under Obama's plan it would include illegals, but I'm not 100% sure about that. This artical says it will.
[url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102514]Illegals to kill Obama health plan?[/url]

I cannot remember what it is called but its health coverage for children who's parent cannot afford coverage. Obama expanded that plan a month or so back and he also expanded the coverage to cover children of illegals.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;569065]I think I get your drift. You're basically saying that if we could let go of our desire for material things and creature comforts, we'd be able to afford healthcare a lot more easily.

But the guys are right, that's fantasy land. Everyone likes HDTVs, everyone likes IPhones, everyone likes to spend money to attend Redskins games or subscribe to DirecTV. That won't change. Only a small fraction of the population would ever think along your lines.

Believing in your line of thinking is one thing, but the only way you can truly change the world is if you "carry the room". Can your line of thinking relate to others, can you convince them? Human nature says not in this case.

It's a nice thought, but it's way out of touch with the way most people think. To think you could convince the world to adjust to this line of thinking shows you're detached from reality. And if you don't think people are capable of being convinced of this, then you're dreaming of the possibility, not thinking about a reality.[/quote]

First of all, it's not *my* line of thinking in the regards that it is not my original thought. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to make that point clear.

Second of all, I never claimed to be able, nor desire, to convince anyone of anything -- especially something like this. Awakening cannot be provoked, nor influenced by external forces. That is why you don't get it, and neither does buttplug.

Read my posts. You think I'm some kind of hippie, just like others you've met, and you erroneously assume that I'm preaching what they do. Hence, you draw conclusions about me based on that image, and not from my posts. That is why you mistakenly assumed my motive is to convince people. You're wrong. Seems like you are a bit out of touch my friend.

Re: Obama Care
 

Hey all. Just wanted to give a quick check. Afraid today I won't be around much. I have to actually apply my intellectual acumen (such at it is) to filing motions in response to intelligent, well read idiots.

So it will a lot like what goes on here.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569020]You keep saying this Saden, and that is great. Honest. But you have yet to ever answer the questions on the deficit and debt in any way that remotely brings down the debt. If we can get government reduced and fiscally sound, then lets do that first, and then we can shift the priorities to universal healthcare.

Suppose we stridently reduce our military, lets say to 50% of current outlays, would you also be willing to forego new UHC expenses, and freeze other social expenditures for 2-4 years to try to atleast hold the line against the debt? And by freeze, I mean just that no cola adjustments, no automatic increases, a hard freeze. No government agency's discretionary budget could receive a penny more in real dollars for up to 4 years, so if the Dept Of Education's budget this year is 46.2 billion dollars, then the budget for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 would be 46.2 billion dollars. Perhaps add an emergency clause requiring a supermajority approval could be added, but it would have to be a per case basis, not an omnibus gargantuan bill. So if the Dept of Ed had an emergency need for a 1 year raise in cost they could apply for that but at the end of the year the next years budget would be staked at the 46.2billion dollars.)

I would. And, I have stated before that I would be willing to reduce the standing Army (not AF/Navy) to 1/3(or less) of it's current size, and enforce 2yr mandatory service (and ya know I just realized if we mandated 2yrs of service, think of all the 18-20yr olds who currently don't have healthcare who would then have 2 years access to military hospitals! further we could extend the 2yrs access to 4yrs access at military healthcare locations, and have our countries youth covered from 18-22yrs old. Is that a Win Win or what!)

Maybe we could include hospitals as an option for mandatory service requirements. Schneed''s discussions seems to have said we need to increase the medical labor pool, so perhaps you could choose to serve the country in hospitals, I am sure many would then go further in the health care field.

If we could reduce the military, and reduce the debt (not the deficit) than we could seriously look at ways to bring about UHC.

But please stop saying you would accept a raise in taxes, as if your taxes somehow will cover our 11.6Trillion dollar debt.[/quote]

If you want to play armchair budgeteer that's cool but don't act like the heath care isn't as much of an issue as the budget deficit and national debt. In my view we have a bigger problem at hand than the national debt. Further more I'm not even convinced your comprehend what discretionary spending is. I mean, if we bring our troops home as you suggested we would save all of that 799 billion. The issue of course is you don't think that's practical nor do you think universal health care to be practical. What Obama is doing is no different than what Ronald Reagan did and we turned quite alright. With respect to universal health care Obama is trying to save money in as many places as he and we'll see what comes of it. It's simply too early to declare failure on the whole matter.

As for future generations, if they can manage to bring down their budget deficit or don't create one of their own they'll be alright. in 20 years the GDP is expected to double and so is government revenue. That is to say your concerns are without merit and even more so due to your antipathy towards government funded social services.

p.s. If people really are concerned about the wellbeing of future generations they aught to support reduction of our greenhouse output.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569000]Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of [I]I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do[/I]:

[LIST=1][*]Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.[*]Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.[*]Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.[/LIST][/quote]1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

[URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22705345/is-the-number-of-uninsured-accurate.htm"]Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com[/URL]

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hogberg200406150914.asp"]David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online[/URL]

[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million"]The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981"]The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568993]Stop for a second and pretend you don't know me. That will help you to better understand my points, rather than arguing with yourself based on your assumptions of me.

I'm 27, and I've been out of college for 5 years. The ideas I'm proposing are from no college course, so you can rest assured the curriculum hasn't changed.

Don't try and invalidate what I'm saying by using stupid cliche phrases, like "psycho-babble". You are better at debate than that. Don't lower yourself, because you think you know me -- and that me, and people like me, are the problem with this country. Remove emotion from your argument. I can tell you are frustrated with a certain type of thinking, which you have mistakenly assumed I am advocating. Take some time to try and understand what I'm saying, rather than assuming you already know, and looking like an ass.

I'm not talking about "ego" in the sense of Freud. I'm talking about the illusory self, the voice in your head that never stops talking. It's a Buddhist concept -- long before Freud. But, you're so smart, you probably knew that already.

I can't explain, "Deny thyself," as well as Eckhart Tolle, so I'll just quote him:

"And when Jesus said, 'Deny thyself,' what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self -- ego -- were truly who I am, it would be absurd to 'deny' it."

Following in this vain of thought, Jesus also said, "If someone takes your shirt, let him have your coat as well." In other words, let go of the world of form -- the world of the ego. Let go of your ego, and its attachments.[/quote]First off, you must've missed the J/K (just kidding) in one of my responses and the other that said the comments about hippies and such were "tongue-in-cheek".

Second, in the post above and your response to S10 you seem to be making a good deal of judgements and using sterotypes about me and others.

Third, "looking like an ass" and "buttplug" references are unnecessary.

Anyway, all that aside, I don't for a second think that you and people like you are the problem with this country. One of the reasons I served in the armed forces was to make sure that everyone in this country keeps the right to his/her own beliefs and has the ability to express them. Whether I believe they are misguided or not is simply my opinon and is certainly no point of frustration for me. If I was so frustrated with differing points of view I certainly wouldn't banter back and forth with saden and others all the time.

I completely understand your point and as I've stated before, and other have as well, in theory there is some sense to it, in reality not so much.

I haven't studied or researched Buddhism so I can't effectively comment. As far as Tolle's take on Jesus, I have as much credibility, if not more credibility, than he does on commenting on the Gospels and their meaning. My comments are influenced by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Jesus' teachings, not someone who has pulled his philosophy from several different and completely disparate sources and who has no formal theological training.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569089]1. Agree
[B]2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.[/B]
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

[URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22705345/is-the-number-of-uninsured-accurate.htm"]Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com[/URL]

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hogberg200406150914.asp"]David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online[/URL]

[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million"]The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981"]The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary[/URL][/quote]


You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569088]If you want to play armchair budgeteer that's cool but don't act like the heath care isn't as much of an issue as the budget deficit and national debt. In my view we have a bigger problem at hand than the national debt. Further more I'm not even convinced your comprehend what discretionary spending is. I mean, if we bring our troops home as you suggested we would save all of that 799 billion. The issue of course is you don't think that's practical nor do you think universal health care to be practical. What Obama is doing is no different than what Ronald Reagan did and we turned quite alright. With respect to universal health care Obama is trying to save money in as many places as he and we'll see what comes of it. It's simply too early to declare failure on the whole matter.

As for future generations, if they can manage to bring down their budget deficit or don't create one of their own they'll be alright. in 20 years the GDP is expected to double and so is government revenue. That is to say your concerns are without merit and even more so due to your antipathy towards government funded social services.

p.s. If people really are concerned about the wellbeing of future generations they aught to support reduction of our greenhouse output.[/quote]

I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]First off, you must've missed the J/K (just kidding) in one of my responses and the other that said the comments about hippies and such were "tongue-in-cheek".[/quote]

I know -- it's just the same old stuff. Some people are kidding, others are not. I take it with a grain of salt. Also, you came off as quite condescending.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]Second, in the post above and your response to S10 you seem to be making a good deal of judgements and using sterotypes about me and others.[/quote]

I can see why you would think that.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]Third, "looking like an ass" and "buttplug" references are unnecessary.[/quote]

True. The "looking like an ass" comment was founded in the sense of that saying about assuming. Either way, that stuff was pretty juvenile. What can I say? It's tough when it everyone is ganging up on you, and basically saying you're a nut for trying to be positive, and that you have no idea about "real" life and live in a fantasy world. They're basically saying the foundation for my life is worthless, and hence, so is my life. Harsh.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]Anyway, all that aside, I don't for a second think that you and people like you are the problem with this country. One of the reasons I served in the armed forces was to make sure that everyone in this country keeps the right to his/her own beliefs and has the ability to express them. Whether I believe they are misguided or not is simply my opinon and is certainly no point of frustration for me. If I was so frustrated with differing points of view I certainly wouldn't banter back and forth with saden and others all the time.[/quote]

You remind me of my Dad.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]I completely understand your point and as I've stated before, and other have as well, in theory there is some sense to it, in reality not so much.[/quote]

See what I mean?

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569097]I haven't studied or researched Buddhism so I can't effectively comment. As far as Tolle's take on Jesus, I have as much credibility, if not more credibility, than he does on commenting on the Gospels and their meaning. My comments are influenced by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Jesus' teachings, not someone who has pulled his philosophy from several different and completely disparate sources and who has no formal theological training.[/quote]

Tolle has devoted his life to the study of Jesus' teachings, as well as other prophets. But, I'm not sure why that makes any difference.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569102]You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. [B]I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured[/B]?[/quote]

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569105]I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.[/quote]

I don't ignore you, I'm just not that into you and your rants. Enjoy [URL="http://zfacts.com/p/318.html"]this chart[/URL] and I hope you learn something (Note: anything above the Obama line is all on Obama):

[IMG]http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif[/IMG]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;569068]If I'm correct under Obama's plan it would include illegals, but I'm not 100% sure about that. This artical says it will.
[url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102514]Illegals to kill Obama health plan?[/url]

I[B] cannot remember what it is called but its health coverage for children who's parent cannot afford coverage[/B]. Obama expanded that plan a month or so back and he also expanded the coverage to cover children of illegals.[/quote]

It's called the Children's Health Insurance Program (aka, the "CHIP" program). And, unless I am mistaken, the reauthorization of the program did not extend coverage to children of illegal aliens.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569108]Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud![/quote]
I say just increase the taxes on the people who think this is a good idea.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569108]Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud![/quote]


That was a rhetorical question genius. You know, to highlight the cost of what he is suggesting and to see how it compares to actually providing a universal heal care plan with a public option. And you wonder why I ignore you.

Re: Obama Care
 

Before I go though, I wanted to address something that has been bandied about by both sides of this debate - the accusation that alternatives aren't being offered just nay saying. In light of that, and in part based on much of the information I have garnered here and in Schneed's Health Care thread, I actually have been trying to formulate an alternative to the latest, greatest massive pending entitlement but just haven't the time. But I did want to suggest some things, that might actually lead to discussing constructive creative alternatives in the health care field.

I am not sure whether this or Schneed's Health Care thread is the appropriate place for what I have in mind but I'll post it here in hopes that we can get a little brainstorming going on.

First rule of brainstorming - YOU CANNOT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HATE IT, CRITICIZE SOMEONE'S ELSE'S IDEA. If you don't like, ignore it. It either falls flat on its own or you (or someone else) find a way to make it work with your idea/scheme - but at this stage ALL ideas are valid. I don't know if we can make it work, some here have a more difficult time questioning/reexamining their basic philosophic stances/principles than others, but if we strive to find what is right with each others ideas maybe we can find something that incorporates the best of both sides of the equation (i.e government action, through wealth transferance alone, can solve the problem v. government action, through wealth transferance alone, cannot solve the problem) (or, if you prefer, CRedskinsRule & Slinging Sammy33's belief in a minimalist government because government is inherently unable to resolve almost any (if not all) social ills [I][B]v.[/B][/I] Saden's belief that an expansive progressive government is capable of resolving almost any (if not all) social ills)(P.S. - anyone notice saden's leap of faith? Notice how he [I]still[/I] hasn't owned up to it?).

I made the first rule and now I am going to break it - but only to set the premise for the brainstorming. As to health care, what we need is not more of the same which is, essentially, what the current legislation creates. Same players, same system just enforced payments and the creation of a new public insurer (who plays by the same rules as existing insurers). I think this is doomed to fail b/c it is the healthcare infrastructure that is skewed and pouring money into it does not substantively alter the system in any progressive manner but, to my mind, furthers an ultimately broken and economically "regressive" health care system. Thus, rather debate the rectitude of the current legislation, I suggest we begin from the premise that it is not a true re-imagination of the Health Care System and, as such, should be put on the shelf for now.

Any actual constructive analysis seems to me to require something very basic that we have not done -- A listing of the pros and cons of the current system. Actually, I think the cons have been pretty well fleshed out. Why don't we devote some energy to analyzing just what exactly works about our system. Clearly, something must. Once we have identified the actual positives perhaps we can see ways to enhance those and close some of the gaps. Again, I am trying for a true and practical reinvention of the health care system with concrete thoughts as to how to decrease cost, expand coverage and maintain quality. Given our current national debt status, the premise being that cost to the public is an extremely important point.

As I have previously indicated - To address cost of care, I think one key is to create a Workers Comp type compensation system for injuries occuring as a result of treatment. As part of this, damages would be capped or scheduled much as is done in the WC field (lost a leg on the job - you get x). I recognize that creating such a schedule in the health care is difficult but it is something that can be tweaked along the way. The effect of this system is to remove liability from the litigation equation. The question is not "Did the doctor negligently do something to injure you" to, after the treatment, "Were you injured?". In this system, punitive damages would be excluded and "pain and suffering" be considered as part of the schedule. If a doctor's patients rack up x amount in claims or x amounts of awards to patients of teh doctor, the doctor license is revoked. period. From a societal point of view, it is a statement by the society that (a) We accept that injuries happen in medical treatment even when no one is negligent; and (b) As a society, we are willing to forego the possibility of full compensation (economic damages, pain & suffering damages, and punitive damages) in order to insure that [I]anyone[/I] injured due to the provision of medical services will receive some form of compensation even if they would not normally be entitled to compensation because they assumed the risks inherent in to medical treatement. (Think of it - Never having to sign another medical waiver form). This was the justification for WC (employers would invoke assumption of the risk defenses when sued for workplace injuries). I think it's time has come in the medical field.

Also to address costs, in the health care thread, Schneed indicated that competition for patients sometimes drives doctors/hospitals to buy the most cutting edge technology and this, in turn, ends up driving up costs both b/c of the capital outlay and the need to use the technology to justify the outlay. To me this screams for government intervention b/c it is a situation where the free market actually drives [I]up[/I] costs. If anyone has any bright ideas on how to correct the market flaw here, I suggest that would be useful (see Schneed's post in the HC thread on this).

Another area of costs is pharmacuticals. Better living through chemicals is the dirty little secret of modern life, R&D in this area have led to phenomenal break throughs that enhance the quality of life for many many americans. It is this very R&D, however, that is used to justify the sometimes exhorbitant costs of the resultant drugs. Perhaps we could limit profits on actual producton runs of drugs in a manner that directly relates to cost of production and find a way to publicly fund the R&D profit incentive. Here's a thought, initial R&D costs can either born by company or granted through a Federal application process. For those borne by the company, if a particular drug eventually comes to the approval phase, the R&D costs could be reimbursed from the public fund. Further, if a particular drug is approved the costs incurred by the company in seeking that approval would be reimbursed from the public fund. If a drug is particular popular and sells en masse, production bonuses from the fund could be paid. (i.e. build in a profit incentive into both the R&D phase and the production phase).

In terms of coverage and levels of coverage, again, to keep the profit motive alive and well, guarranteed coverage cannot be much more than minimums. Anything more and it creates a disencentive to seek better coverage and w/out this incentive, IMO, the drive to improve quality to compete for insureds will cause the quality of care to suffer.

Further, coverage at these minimal levels would be offered to anyone with an income less than twice (or one and half, or some other multiple) times the poverty rate. Over that income, if you incur medical costs and fail to pay them, the hospitals are reimbursed by the public fund BUT the Feds, rather than the hospitals, can collect the debt and do so in the same manner as they pursue unpaid taxes.

Payment for the services of uninsured would operate similar to the existing medicaid system but would be reimbursed at a higher (but not full) percentage rate than under the current system to (a) more adequately reflect costs while (b) keeping a downward public pressure on costs. (Schneed, I don't recall, is the reimbursement for medicaid payment greater or less than the best negotiated rates of insurers?).

In terms funding, I see no other way then a surtax much as we have for SS. Funding would pay for the minimal coverage costs of care of the uninsureds, a beauracracy (ohhh dirty word) would need to be created for the malpractice substitute, for the administration of the pharmaceutical administration, and for managing the access to technology. This, I think, would transfer much of the cost of health care onto the Federal government but, hopefully, still leave room for innovative health technologies to develop.

Those are some of my ideas on rough structures.

In addition to alternatives and other ideas, I really am interested in what people think is right with our system and how we can preserve that while, as saden said at one point, "taking more people into the system."





I REALLY need to get to work.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569107]What can I say? It's tough when it everyone is ganging up on you, and basically saying you're a nut for trying to be positive, and that you have no idea about "real" life and live in a fantasy world. [B]They're basically saying the foundation for my life is worthless, and hence, so is my life. Harsh[/B].[/quote]
The foundation for your life is much more than your religion or philosophy. That being said, I can't speak for everyone else but I'm pretty confident they would say the same, but because you believe the things you do and others disagree certainly doesn't mean I think you, your belief system or life are worthless. Don't take it to that extreme.

[quote]You remind me of my Dad.[/quote]Thank you.

Re: Obama Care
 

A cost-benefit analysis?! What a crazy idea.

We should also clearly define the problems with healthcare, then derive some requirements, and then test our solutions against said requirements. You have done some of that already. Sorry, I can't contribute any more than you have already.

Good post, Joe. Hopefully it doesn't go unnoticed. I especially like the idea about R&D.

P.S.: breaking your own rule? You must be a lawyer. ;)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;569120]The foundation for your life is much more than your religion or philosophy. That being said, I can't speak for everyone else but I'm pretty confident they would say the same, but because you believe the things you do and others disagree certainly doesn't mean I think you, your belief system or life are worthless. Don't take it to that extreme.

Thank you.[/quote]

If something has no application in "real" life, isn't that basically saying it's useless? Where else would it apply? Anyways, I don't really care if people think my accepted philosophy is useless. It's mine, not their's, and it represents a better way to live, IMO.

:food-smil

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569102]You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.[/quote]This point can certainly be negotiated fairly easily in a congressional sub-committee.

[quote]I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?

Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?[/quote]The 14M eligible have to be covered under the existing plans. I'm for a balanced budget so either Medicare tax increases or coverages are cut. Even if you take the 5.7M and the 8.2M and estimate $ 1,500 / yr. to cover their coverage through a private insurer you're looking at about $ 21B / yr. I'll give you $ 11B out of the defense budget, if you give me the other $ 10B from other discretionary.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569110]I don't ignore you, I'm just not that into you and your rants. Enjoy [URL="http://zfacts.com/p/318.html"]this chart[/URL] and I hope you learn something (Note: anything above the Obama line is all on Obama):

[IMG]http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif[/IMG][/quote]

I certainly hope you are right Saden, I will say your hyper-defensiveness of Obama is a little weird. I have clearly said I believe both parties are at fault for the debt. Probably the Republicans moreso because of their playing politics with it. I will give you that the chart you presented makes the debt seem oh so silly(nice link to a republican bashing site, oh so much more unbiased than Fox or BCBS), so again, I hope you are right. However, the substantial difference in the all time high debt at the beginning of the chart, and what we are currently experiencing, is that one was due to specific incidents, the war, the other is a systemic increase that cannot be reduced without painful cuts in infrastructure at some point. There is an article today about California's budget agreement, and the painful cuts to follow. I realize the difference is that California cannot print its own money and is much more tied to a "real" economy.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569129]I certainly hope you are right Saden, I will say your hyper-defensiveness of Obama is a little weird. I have clearly said I believe both parties are at fault for the debt. Probably the Republicans moreso because of their playing politics with it. I will give you that the chart you presented makes the debt seem oh so silly(nice link to a republican bashing site, oh so much more unbiased than Fox or BCBS), so again, I hope you are right. However, the substantial difference in the all time high debt at the beginning of the chart, and what we are currently experiencing, is that one was due to specific incidents, the war, the other is a systemic increase that cannot be reduced without painful cuts in infrastructure at some point. There is an article today about California's budget agreement, and the painful cuts to follow. I realize the difference is that California cannot print its own money and is much more tied to a "real" economy.[/quote]

The chart says that data provided through 2007 is from Bush's whitehouse.gov. Not sure if that is just for Bush's terms, but it implies it is everything from 1940 on. Not really a "republican bashing site". Also, saden has repeatedly referred to Obama as "weak-ass Obama". I get the feeling his man-crush is not as strong as you think.

Re: Obama Care
 

The medical profession is against any health care plan that the government presents. And the media also is against any plan that's presented just so they can create a story. I'm lucky enough to already have health insurance, but a friend of mine doesn't, and even though he's a professional worker, he has to worry about the huge medical bills from his wife and 5 kids.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569131]The chart says that data provided through 2007 is from Bush's whitehouse.gov. Not sure if that is just for Bush's terms, but it implies it is everything from 1940 on. Not really a "republican bashing site". Also, saden has repeatedly referred to Obama as "weak-ass Obama". I get the feeling his man-crush is not as strong as you think.[/quote]

I wasn't talking about the chart. If you go to the link Saden put in his reply, you will see the site I am talking about. As for his "man-crush", I just said he was hyper defensive. I did not lay anything in terms of the debt conversation at Obama's feet. He threw the defense in of his own volition.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569077]First of all, it's not *my* line of thinking in the regards that it is not my original thought. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to make that point clear.

Second of all, I never claimed to be able, nor desire, to convince anyone of anything -- especially something like this. Awakening cannot be provoked, nor influenced by external forces. That is why you don't get it, and neither does buttplug.

Read my posts. You think I'm some kind of hippie, just like others you've met, and you erroneously assume that I'm preaching what they do. Hence, you draw conclusions about me based on that image, and not from my posts. That is why you mistakenly assumed my motive is to convince people. You're wrong. Seems like you are a bit out of touch my friend.[/quote]

Wow you're touchy, so easily offended. Nowhere did I criticize you so let's relax or I'm going to abandon the discussion. I never said you were a hippy. I didn't draw conclusions based on an image.

I simply stated what I thought you were saying:

[quote=Schneed10;569065]I think I get your drift. You're basically saying that if we could let go of our desire for material things and creature comforts, we'd be able to afford healthcare a lot more easily.[/quote]

You neither confirmed nor denied that the line above was an accurate representation of your jist. Am I on track? Feel free to correct me if I'm not.

Seems unproductive to fire barbs at me when all I'm doing is trying to tie up the loose end in our communication; I'm just trying to make sure I understand you.

If I understood you appropriately, then my response said it all. If you don't believe others can be convinced to give up the material thinking, then you are consciously not working within the confines of reality. If I misunderstood your view, please feel free to clarify.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569077]First of all, it's not *my* line of thinking in the regards that it is not my original thought. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to make that point clear.

Second of all, I never claimed to be able, nor desire, to convince anyone of anything -- especially something like this. Awakening cannot be provoked, nor influenced by external forces. That is why you don't get it, and neither does buttplug.

Read my posts. You think I'm some kind of hippie, just like others you've met, and you erroneously assume that I'm preaching what they do. Hence, you draw conclusions about me based on that image, and not from my posts. That is why you mistakenly assumed my motive is to convince people. You're wrong. Seems like you are a bit out of touch my friend.[/quote]

Wow. Not only are you loopie you're also a flaming douche. Good combo.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;569147]Wow you're touchy, so easily offended. Nowhere did I criticize you so let's relax or I'm going to abandon the discussion. I never said you were a hippy. I didn't draw conclusions based on an image.

I simply stated what I thought you were saying:



You neither confirmed nor denied that the line above was an accurate representation of your jist. Am I on track? Feel free to correct me if I'm not.

Seems unproductive to fire barbs at me when all I'm doing is trying to tie up the loose end in our communication; I'm just trying to make sure I understand you.

If I understood you appropriately, then my response said it all. If you don't believe others can be convinced to give up the material thinking, then you are consciously not working within the confines of reality. If I misunderstood your view, please feel free to clarify.[/quote]

Yeah, I've been a little touchy lately. Sorry for that.

However, you did criticize me, by saying that I am, "detached from reality," by assuming that I feel like I can convince people to think absent of ego. I am not trying to convince people of anything, and awakening cannot come from a convincing argument. So, your assumption led to the insult. See my response to SS33 for an explanation of why that response could be construed as insulting.

As for whether you're on track in understanding my point, yeah pretty much -- and I commend you for actually caring to try and understand me. Although, I'm not really thinking about the costs. I'm thinking in terms of principle (not reality, right?) -- we should look out for one another, and ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, among other things. Be our brothers' keepers, if you will.

If people identified less with their ego, they would not resist this so much, and they would be more concerned with finding ways to make it work -- rather than finding reasons to discredit it. I hear the same argument over and over: why should I help others? Why should I do for them, what they can't/won't do for themselves? Because it's better than neglecting them. That's all I'm saying.

"Blessed is he who considers the poor, The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble." -Psalm 41:1

BTW, I'm not a Christian, and I don't read the Bible. So, I don't want to misrepresent myself. I just know that most Americans are, and they can relate better to quotes from the Bible -- know what I mean?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;569156]Wow. Not only are you loopie you're also a flaming douche. Good combo.[/quote]

I'm sure if you met me in real life you would think otherwise, and I'm sure I would do the same of you. Just keep in mind, you were the one who jumped in just to insult me.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569131]The chart says that data provided through 2007 is from Bush's whitehouse.gov. Not sure if that is just for Bush's terms, but it implies it is everything from 1940 on. Not really a "republican bashing site". Also, saden has repeatedly referred to Obama as "weak-ass Obama". I get the feeling his man-crush is not as strong as you think.[/quote]
Yea, but when he says that its because he thinks Obama should do more of this stuff.

Re: Obama Care
 

For those of you with a lot of time, here's a very long (9 pages) article about the history of the healthcare system in America, and how it got so expensive and out of control. Actually, the last two pages are source references. If nothing else, add it to your Favorites and read it when you have time.

While the main premise is how government intervention, rules and regulations basically got us to where we are, doctors and hospitals don't escape criticism either. This was written back in 1993 -- the last time there was a big push for a national healthcare program.

[url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_n2_v28/ai_13834930/]Health care in the twentieth century: a history of government interference and protection | Business Economics | Find Articles at BNET[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569123]If something has no application in "real" life, isn't that basically saying it's useless? Where else would it apply? Anyways, I don't really care if people think my accepted philosophy is useless. It's mine, not their's, and it represents a better way to live, IMO.

:food-smil[/quote]

You seem to care an awful lot what other people think about your "accepted philosophy".

I don't think anyone thinks you or anything about you is worthless. But pointing out what they think is misguided is simply human. What the heck is the point of posting on a message board other than to expose your thoughts to the evaluation of others? Your "accepted philosophy" didn't originate out of thin air. You adopted it through evaluation of ideas presented to you through various media. Now you are spreading it in a similar way and expect for it not to be judged and evaluated?

Anyways back to health care. Overall this is the best PL thread in quite a while. I applaud almost everyone in it. Special kudos to Joe, CP and saden, and Sammy for some good back and forth.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569158]Yeah, I've been a little touchy lately. Sorry for that.

However, you did criticize me, by saying that I am, "detached from reality," by assuming that I feel like I can convince people to think absent of ego. I am not trying to convince people of anything, and awakening cannot come from a convincing argument. So, your assumption led to the insult. See my response to SS33 for an explanation of why that response could be construed as insulting.

As for whether you're on track in understanding my point, yeah pretty much -- and I commend you for actually caring to try and understand me. Although, I'm not really thinking about the costs. I'm thinking in terms of principle (not reality, right?) -- we should look out for one another, and ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, among other things. Be our brothers' keepers, if you will.

If people identified less with their ego, they would not resist this so much, and they would be more concerned with finding ways to make it work -- rather than finding reasons to discredit it. I hear the same argument over and over: why should I help others? Why should I do for them, what they can't/won't do for themselves? Because it's better than neglecting them. That's all I'm saying.

"Blessed is he who considers the poor, The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble." -Psalm 41:1

BTW, I'm not a Christian, and I don't read the Bible. So, I don't want to misrepresent myself. I just know that most Americans are, and they can relate better to quotes from the Bible -- know what I mean?[/quote]

OK I see. And by the way no criticism was intended, I'm just observing that this line of thinking has no practical application in our lives. And it never will. That's not a criticism, just an expression of my opinion.

Especially when it comes to our kids, we're genetically programmed to look out for ourselves to provide as much as we possibly can for them. I don't view myself as my brother's keeper, I view myself as my daughters' keeper. And consciously or unconsciously, I could never strip that away from myself.

Nice thought though, file it under the category of 'wouldn't it be nice.'

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;569160]I'm sure if you met me in real life you would think otherwise, and I'm sure I would do the same of you. Just keep in mind, you were the one who jumped in just to insult me.[/quote]

Exactly where did ANYONE insult you? Your reaction to someone not agreeing with you is that they are insulting you? I think you should heed some of the sentiments you yourself have already written because the only one here who is "assuming" what others are thinking is you.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;569129]I certainly hope you are right Saden, I will say your hyper-defensiveness of Obama is a little weird. I have clearly said I believe both parties are at fault for the debt. Probably the Republicans moreso because of their playing politics with it. I will give you that the chart you presented makes the debt seem oh so silly(nice link to a republican bashing site, oh so much more unbiased than Fox or BCBS), so again, I hope you are right. However, the substantial difference in the all time high debt at the beginning of the chart, and what we are currently experiencing, is that one was due to specific incidents, the war, the other is a systemic increase that cannot be reduced without painful cuts in infrastructure at some point. There is an article today about California's budget agreement, and the painful cuts to follow. I realize the difference is that California cannot print its own money and is much more tied to a "real" economy.[/quote]


The difference is the data for links I provided is readily available and can be easily verified. If I were you I would try to catch saden in a lie and say "ahaaa, you're wrong saden because [URL="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y"]I looked[/URL] at the [URL="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1929&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid"]GDP data[/URL] and the [URL="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm"]national debt data[/URL] and your chart is totally wrong." Fox and BCBS make claims that I can't verify. If I don't have the methodology used I can't investigate further and if that's the case we enter the realm of opinions. Plus the whole thing is a clusterf*ck of self-referencing and quotation...they're all refering to the BCBSA study. It's doggy work and I f'ing loath doggy work.

If you dislike Obama as president you would totally hate me as president. Unfortunately, I'm not POTUS, sigh.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;569168]OK I see. And by the way no criticism was intended, I'm just observing that this line of thinking has no practical application in our lives. And it never will. That's not a criticism, just an expression of my opinion.

Especially when it comes to our kids, we're genetically programmed to look out for ourselves to provide as much as we possibly can for them. I don't view myself as my brother's keeper, I view myself as my daughters' keeper. And consciously or unconsciously, I could never strip that away from myself.

Nice thought though, file it under the category of 'wouldn't it be nice.'[/quote]

My thought on self interest goes even deeper. No human does one single thing ever that doesn't provide benefit to them self. Nothing. It isn't possible for us to act in any different way. The main crux is that "benefit" is different from person to person. I, like you, would do anything to protect my kids. Why? Why do I care about some other human so much? Well I am responsible for existence(at least 50%) so I feel I am responsible to get them through life as safely and happily as possible, Why? Because I'd feel like a pure ass if I didn't. And there it is. I do it so I don't feel like an ass. That's an extremely simple explanation for a much more complicated situation but at it's base it is probably the reason that everyone who loves and cherishes their kids do so. It all comes back to the self. There is no other way.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;569172]If you dislike Obama as president you would totally hate me as president. Unfortunately, I'm not POTUS, sigh.[/quote]

Actually I don't think I would so much. I would trust that you'd do everything in your power to implement your ideas...no compromise. Then we could at least see if the ideas work based on the results. And I think you'd abandon your ideas if they didn't work. One of the biggest problems in DC is that the ideas that eventually get passed and implemented are BS compromises that bastardize the philosophical premise they're based on. Thus, gaining any real judgment based on performance is nearly impossible because the implementation has become such a cluster. Absent a similar conservative candidate(in terms of basic approach/methodology) I'd probably vote for you. Sort of a "fine, time to prove it" vote.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;569112]It's called the Children's Health Insurance Program (aka, the "CHIP" program). And, unless I am mistaken, the reauthorization of the program did not extend coverage to children of illegal aliens.[/quote]
[url=http://www.chipmedicaid.org/english/qualify.asp]CHIP | Children's Medicaid[/url]

Here is a clip of who can qualify:

The citizenship or immigration status of the parents does not affect the children's eligibility and is not reported on the application form.