The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Universal Health Care

  1. #11
    Senior Member Juli H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The coldest part of Alaska
    Posts
    3,674

    Default

    The government has done enough already to f up the country....might as well add another pig to the pile.

    Juli
    God answers prayers all the time. Even the ones we don't know we asked. God is Good (always)

    "There are only two ways to live your life.
    One is as though nothing is a miracle.
    The other is as though everything is a miracle."

    - Albert Einstein

  2. #12
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badbullgator View Post
    So Jeff do you ever disagree with any thing the left says?
    Goberment running every aspect of your life is not a good thing, do you agree with that?
    Quite often. I believe in universal health care coverage that is not financed through employment while the administration is actually looking to increase the portion of the bill paid by employers. One of the major mistakes in this country is that we expect employers to pay the bulk of health care costs. That severely affects the ability of our business to compete globally since no other country treats health care as a cost of employment. It also results in a variety of corporate shenanigans to avoid having to provide benefits for lower income employees while preserving benefits for more valued employees, including outsourcing labor to other countries.

    I believe that there is lots of room for discussing the level of benefits that would be covered by a national plan. Once that package is settled, I do not believe that there should be any tax benefits to those purchasing additional coverage. It should not be allowed as a business expense and there should be no tax deductions for medical expenses or for supplemental insurances. People with higher incomes would still be able to purchase a higher level of service either by paying directly or by purchasing supplemental insurance, but the government would not be subsidizing that expense through tax preferences.

    I understand and share concerns about the bureaucratization of medicine. However, we already ate that apple and have been paying the price in our health care for some time. I don't want government running my life and I don't want Microsoft or my insurance company running it either. Unfortunately I have to live with all three. At least the government gives me the illusion of a vote.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    How much will it cost to insure the uninsurable, like people with AIDS and crack heads who cannot get insurance due to their health conditions? I don't want my insurance going up because we have to pay for thsoe who don't give a snit about their own health.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  4. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth View Post
    How much will it cost to insure the uninsurable, like people with AIDS and crack heads who cannot get insurance due to their health conditions? I don't want my insurance going up because we have to pay for thsoe who don't give a snit about their own health.
    Once they have spent their own money, their bills are being paid by taxpayers through Medicaid (based on income) and Medicare (based on disability). The people who benefit from universal coverage are those who are working full time but don't have health insurance and can't afford regular care. Those people now avoid seeking the medical services that might allow them to catch their illnesses before they become disabling.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Its my experience that many addicts don't even seek treatment until they are at the very end of their rope or they are forced into it, thru arrest or something similar. One of my former training partners was a neonatologist, according to him most pregnant dopers do not get any prenatal care but when they do get it they (medicare users) are the first ones to sue if something is wrong with their child. I object to paying for their care in the first place and in the second place I do not like they way that they treat malpractice as a lottery.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  6. #16
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The majority of health care costs in this country are already paid by the government, either through direct insurance programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, military benefits, or federal employee insurance, or through tax subsidies for costs paid by businesses and private individuals. Universal health care is actually a much less radical change than those that have happened with the growth of managed care providers, or even the shift from a predominantly non-profit hospital industry to one that is largely for profit.
    If we look at the VA medical system, there are many shortcomings there. HMOs seemed like a good idea since a doctor visit was so cheap for members. It seemed less good when the HMO stepped in to deny certain procedures to members. I can remember a friend being sent home from the hospital after major surgery in spite of her doctor's strong objections, because that's what the insurance company wanted based on the efficiency of the use of funds rather than medical judgment.

    While the health care may be "subsidized" in non-obvious ways, it isn't quite the same as actually being run by a government agency. It seems that government agencies are often allowed to do things that would not be permitted of a private enterprise. People are quick to critique practices that stem from "for profit" motives. That's a harder battle to fight when the government decides to take control and run something ostensibly for "the greater good of all".

    Federal bureaucracies often turn the simple into a charade. Right now, locally, the Dept of Homeland Security is in a small skirmish over proper security clearance "permits" for the people who care for and escort the mules along a historic canal route. Also, a local joke that they might have to get permits for the mules The canal is no longer in use. There are not strategic implacements anywhere their route along the canal. Even the intercession of Congressman Dent carried no weight with the bureaucracy. They responded to his letter quoting chapter and verse of their regulations. You'd think they'd be looking at the high profile risks rather than concentrating on a couple of muleskinners?

    I think that this is the real fear/danger of health care that is overtly government-operated.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #17
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    If we look at the VA medical system, there are many shortcomings there. HMOs seemed like a good idea since a doctor visit was so cheap for members. It seemed less good when the HMO stepped in to deny certain procedures to members. I can remember a friend being sent home from the hospital after major surgery in spite of her doctor's strong objections, because that's what the insurance company wanted based on the efficiency of the use of funds rather than medical judgment.

    While the health care may be "subsidized" in non-obvious ways, it isn't quite the same as actually being run by a government agency. It seems that government agencies are often allowed to do things that would not be permitted of a private enterprise. People are quick to critique practices that stem from "for profit" motives. That's a harder battle to fight when the government decides to take control and run something ostensibly for "the greater good of all".

    Federal bureaucracies often turn the simple into a charade. Right now, locally, the Dept of Homeland Security is in a small skirmish over proper security clearance "permits" for the people who care for and escort the mules along a historic canal route. Also, a local joke that they might have to get permits for the mules The canal is no longer in use. There are not strategic implacements anywhere their route along the canal. Even the intercession of Congressman Dent carried no weight with the bureaucracy. They responded to his letter quoting chapter and verse of their regulations. You'd think they'd be looking at the high profile risks rather than concentrating on a couple of muleskinners?

    I think that this is the real fear/danger of health care that is overtly government-operated.
    Actually, Obama has made it clear that he does not favor direct federal administration of health benefits. This would be done by insurance companies as it is now. Only Medicaid and some workers comp programs are directly administered by governments and that is at the state level. Even there, almost all have contracted out the actual payment and medical management to private companies that are the same ones used by many company health plans.

  8. #18
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Actually, Obama has made it clear that he does not favor direct federal administration of health benefits. This would be done by insurance companies as it is now. Only Medicaid and some workers comp programs are directly administered by governments and that is at the state level. Even there, almost all have contracted out the actual payment and medical management to private companies that are the same ones used by many company health plans.
    Which continues the 3rd party payer system that causes runaway costs.

  9. #19
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    Which continues the 3rd party payer system that causes runaway costs.
    I don't believe you will find even 20% support for ending third party payment of health care costs. Unfortunately that means that health care cost containment will continue to be dependent of bureaucratic action by third party payers and very limited cost sharing by consumers.

    Interestingly, I suspect that the biggest questions will continue to arise around health care decisions affecting end of life. Insurance companies and Medicare now basically pay people with less than six months to live to give up their rights to medical treatment in return for free palliative and custodial care. I expect that trend to grow and would not be surprised to see more creative innovations in the "rewards" offered to those that give up rights to treatment.

  10. #20
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I don't believe you will find even 20% support for ending third party payment of health care costs. Unfortunately that means that health care cost containment will continue to be dependent of bureaucratic action by third party payers and very limited cost sharing by consumers.

    Interestingly, I suspect that the biggest questions will continue to arise around health care decisions affecting end of life. Insurance companies and Medicare now basically pay people with less than six months to live to give up their rights to medical treatment in return for free palliative and custodial care. I expect that trend to grow and would not be surprised to see more creative innovations in the "rewards" offered to those that give up rights to treatment.
    Or rationing is the most likely option since the will to live is stronger than a socalled reward. I'm sure nobody will ditch 3rd party payer now, since they see sticker shock. The government began the end of that with Medicare.
    Ever increasing deductables with catastrophic and/or hospitilization coverage would and could get the ball rolling back toward a market driven system.

Similar Threads

  1. Free Health Care!!
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 05:36 PM
  2. We'll get it right with health care.....
    By Ken Archer in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 05:16 PM
  3. Health Care Program ... Again
    By Gerry Clinchy in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 10:16 AM
  4. So...how about health care???
    By Uncle Bill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 07:50 AM
  5. Let's have Health Care like the UK
    By tpaschal30 in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 08:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •