Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75)

- - Obama Care (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=30288)

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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. ;)

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?