Healthcare/Convince me

[walt]

Uh, what was false exactly?

Uh, the headline: Uninsured billed unfairly

Its a misleading statement of fact, unsubstantiated by the Scott Ferguson case history in the bodycopy.

[Steve Machol]

I'm curious why people think that Goverement cannot be trusted to manage large public programs efficiently and cost-effectively, yet they have no similar qualms about Defense expenditures. Why does anyone think the Govermnment is inherently unable to manage manage national healthcare, yet they have no problem with the way it handles national defense?

And Walt, I'd hardly call the title of the article 'false reporting'. It is an Op/Ed piece after all. And based on my experience of having to go uninsured for a while, I'd have to say that I can personally confirm this problem based on my direct experience.

[hcjilson]

As can I. hj

[Night Train]

OK, I have decided to email several candidates in the upcoming november election and ask them what they plan to do. I told them that our community of over 2500 members would view their answers. Lets see what they say. Ill post the answers when I get them. It seems to me this problem needs to be dealt with in a "shock and awe" mentality but then...we only reserve that for IMPORTANT things dont we.Dwayne

[walt]

OK, I have decided to email several candidates in the upcoming november election and ask them what they plan to do. I told them that our community of over 2500 members would view their answers. Lets see what they say. Ill post the answers when I get them. It seems to me this problem needs to be dealt with in a "shock and awe" mentality but then...we only reserve that for IMPORTANT things dont we.Dwayne

Way to go Dwayne! :cheers:

FTI, here's what the state of CA offers. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/

[rep]

The defense departmens is at least trying do some things right.
In 1988, Congress passed the first Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). After four base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, the Pentagon has closed 97 major bases in the United States to save taxpayers $25 billion through fiscal 2003 and $3 billion a year thereafter. This is after some tremendous pressure to keep everyone's pet project open.

The previously lauded post office who are delivering less and less mail (due to the technology of electronic messaging) are INCREASING the number of employees to over 900,000 and increasing rates.

Is no one else outraged that our USPO is sponsoring Lance Armstrong to the turn of $50 million dollars and purchasing Yankee and Dodger tickets and giving them to employees at a rate of 1 to customers and 30 to employees.

These are the people your want to run the nation's health care?

Name me one government run institution that has been run well or successful? There are none, because just as Pete said there is no motive for government programs and entities to run well or succeed.

Why is health care the government's responsibility? If health care insurance should be covered, why not auto, life, home insurance. Since this is an optical forum why not eyeglasses and contact lens? After all people shouldn't be responsible for those things either, the government should provide them too!

Where exactly does it end?

If you think this won't get out of control look at what's already happening in New York and this is just the tip of the problem. New York state alone spent $6 million buying Viagra last year. You taxpayers must pay because Viagra is now covered by Medicaid, the government's health plan for poor people. The reason you're paying for it now is because four years ago, the Clinton administration told states they have to. Why because the FDA told them they had to because it was an approved drug that must be made available.
They are using your tax dollars to pay for Viagra for poor people!!!!!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/...ab_020628.html


Steve you indicated you thought the phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the Constitution meant that health care should be included.

The opening paragraph in the constitution is a general statement on what it covers. The specifics are listed in the articles and sections that follow. The supreme court doesnt give a rat's behind what's in the general statement, but they take the specifics very seriously.

Defense ( Section 8 clause 12) is included but no where in the constitution is insurance or medical care included. Nor should it be ever, in my opinion.

Rep

[chip anderson]

Rep: Also note that the USPS is not entirely a government agency anymore, but appearently a union with government protection and subsidy.

[Steve Machol]

Steve you indicated you thought the phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the Constitution meant that health care should be included.

Actually you seem to imply that by this I was supporting a government financed healthcare system. If you reread what I wrote you will see that I didn't say this at all.

Let me ask you. Do you disavow the first line of the Constitution?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If so, on what basis do you do this?

I do not yet believe that it is goverment's responsibility to provide government-financed heathcare coverage for all it's citizens. I do believe it has a responsibility to ensure that the laws and regulations it passes are designed to ensure the maximum good for its citizens, and that this includes health and welfare as much as it does anything else. The question is what can and what should the government do to improve the lot of literally 10 of millions of U.S citizens that are un or underinsured?

If I read you correctly you believe that the government should not do anything to improve life for its citizens. On this issue I will have to respectfully but firmly disagree.

[mrba]

Let me ask you. Do you disavow the first line of the Constitution?

I think it is not fair to make the strong stand of disavowing the constitution when a case of semantics may differ.

"Promote" the general welfare could look many ways... The government could enforce, mandate, subsidize, reform, encourage, or perhaps dissolve, etc etc to "promote" something. Hence if you want to put people on the spot like that, you should all establish what it looks like to "promote"... hence the theme of this thread.

I have also noticed that some of you submit that a government agency can be efficient. This by design is false. Having worked with legislators in Sacramento, I know that it is nessecary for the govt to instill inefficiencies for many good reasons, such as to avoid theft etc. Inefficiency is purposely enacted on the legeslative level, and hence, all government run agencies will have sytematic inefficiencies on purpose.

You can disagree all you want, but I was there.

Not so dumb after all...

mrba

[Steve Machol]

I have also noticed that some of you submit that a government agency can be efficient. This by design is false.

By design? How so?

So then, by your standards the government cannot run National Defense efficiently. Are you in favor of privatizing this function as well?

You really can't have it both ways. If government is inherently incapable of doing anything well or efficiently, then this applies to Defense as well.

I do agree that 'promote the general Welfare' is open to interpretation. But then again so is every other word in the Constitution.

[Steve Machol]

Let me ask you. Do you disavow the first line of the Constitution?

If so, on what basis do you do this?

Actually after rereading this I realize it didn't quite convey what I was trying to say. As I replied to mrba, there are many ways to interpret the words and phrases in the Constitution. In my view it is not unreasonable to interpret the phrase 'promote the general Welfare' as a stated goal that government should do what is best for the common good. Alas, even 'common good' is subject to interpretation.

Nonetheless I do believe that a legitimate role of government is to pass laws and regulations that create the most positive results for its citizens. Given this, I also believe government can do more to fix the current healthcare problems in this country, and it would not necessarily require a publicly financed healthcare system to do this.

[Pete Hanlin]

Regarding capitalism and democracy, if you assume the concept of democracy was born in the minds of French thinkers (and transferred to America via the likes of Jefferson and Franklin), then the concept of capitalism far predates democracy. Of course, the Athenians also had a sort of democracy (in fact, one expression of that democracy was a yearly ostracism- a really interesting societal concept).

Regarding examples of government being unable to run within a P&L environment, we need go no further than the current governmental involvement in healthcare- Medicare. The government pays out far more than it takes in to support this "health insurance." Education is another area (the product continues to decline, and the only solution the government seems to suggest is spending more money). In fact, the whole idea of testing (i.e., instituting some semblance of an evaluation of the system) as suggested by the Administration is met with horrific outcries by the education sector (you mean you want us to produce and be responsible for RESULTS- gasp!).

Look, government employees are not evil, the government as a whole is not evil- however, the very nature of government makes it terribly suited to administering nearly anything in a capitalistic society, because- unlike everything else in that society- there is no motivation to produce profit (or even avoid a loss). In private business (as you are well aware), if your expenditures consistently exceed your income, you go out of business. In government, the same scenario results in a larger budget! I mentioned education- without a doubt, our nation's teachers are probably among the most dedicated and best in the world (most, anyway). However, they work within a system that does not reward good performance and encourages stagnation in the teaching pool (tenure?).

As for the government's handling of defense, you're not getting any argument from ME that it handles this responsibility with greater acumen than it does in any of its other ventures! However, defense is one area that simply cannot be privatized (perhaps that is why it is one of the few things that the Federal government truly is charged with administering).

To sum, in general I believe in capitalism that is regulated just enough to avoid some of the abuses such a system will have if completely unfettered. Supply/demand and profit/loss are healthy concepts upon which to build an economic system. Also, I believe laissez-faire is a crucial concept in the motivation of people to invest and do business in an economy. At the end of the day, I need to know I will have the freedom to make a profit based upon my business decisions.

[Diane]

Is no one else outraged that our USPO is sponsoring Lance Armstrong to the turn of $50 million dollars and purchasing Yankee and Dodger tickets and giving them to employees at a rate of 1 to customers and 30 to employees. Rep

I think Lance Armstrong is a good athletet, and a person who uplifts the spirit of Americans, but ....couldn't applaud this in any shape, form or fashion.

If you think this won't get out of control look at what's already happening in New York and this is just the tip of the problem. New York state alone spent $6 million buying Viagra last year. You taxpayers must pay because Viagra is now covered by Medicaid, the government's health plan for poor people. The reason you're paying for it now is because four years ago, the Clinton administration told states they have to. Why because the FDA told them they had to because it was an approved drug that must be made available.
They are using your tax dollars to pay for Viagra for poor people!!!!!!!!Rep

This obviously is one way to generate more people on the welfare roll...and provide future voters to that particular party.:hammer:

Diane

[chm2023]

The system is broken:

-cost is 50% higher than closest industrialized nation, with 43MM uncovered. If this were a supplier to your business, what would you do? This supplier is 50% more costly and delivers less than the other suppliers--is this a hard decision? If you worked for me, I would fire you for having kept this supplier on for so long.

-the knee jerk response that the answer lies in reducing "frivolous" law suits is a terrible over-simplification. Pennsylvania is now looking at this, and this is what they are proposing: say you go to the doctor to have an ingrown toenail treated. The doctor is wildly incompetent and you get a terrible infection that results in having your leg amputated. Today, you can sue this doctor for mucho bucks. The law that is being proposed (and is the same that Bush is touting for national tort reform--how do you keep straight the things that conservatives think should be federal versus state?)---would allow you to collect any lost wages, which unless you are a field goal kicker, won't amount to much assuming you go back to work in a couple months, and the grand sum of $250,000. You may think this is all a loss of a limb is worth, but I really cannot agree.

Also, there are reports out there which I will find when I have more time that show the difference in insurance premiums between states that have adopted laws as above, and states that have not. Guess what? Not much difference.

This is not to say there are not worthless lawsuits, there are, and not just in medicine. I just think the proposed solution is extremely flawed.

-Last, the cost of healthcare continues to grow at several times the rate of inflation. You may not like the notion of national health care. Fine, I can understand that, but something meaningful needs to be done, and quick. Just standing fast and hoping it will all go away is really, really stupid.

[chm2023]

This obviously is one way to generate more people on the welfare roll...and provide future voters to that particular party.:hammer:

Diane

What a lovely sentiment.

[walt]

Rep: Also note that the USPS is not entirely a government agency anymore, but appearently a union with government protection and subsidy.

Unions, not deregulation, are also the reason so many major carriers no longer exist. As an example, check into what's been happening to United Arilines.

[chm2023]

I'll see your unions and raise you management incompetence.

Here's an interesting piece of news: the Chairman of USAIR, a company that has been in the red for many years, was fired. He had taken a bad situation and made it worse in a very short tenure, less than 2 years if I remember correctly. Oddly enough, he got a $40 Million parachute. And then USAIR has the chutzpah to tell their flight attendents that they have to give up some benefits for the airline to survive. And people wonder why John Edwards talks about two Americas.

[walt]

I'll see your unions and raise you management incompetence.

Here's an interesting piece of news: the Chairman of USAIR, a company that has been in the red for many years, was fired. He had taken a bad situation and made it worse in a very short tenure, less than 2 years if I remember correctly. Oddly enough, he got a $40 Million parachute. And then USAIR has the chutzpah to tell their flight attendents that they have to give up some benefits for the airline to survive. And people wonder why John Edwards talks about two Americas.

"There you go again." Where do you get your facts? Siegel RESIGNED.

http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nw_04_0419.htm

Another press release has his "parachute" at $5 mil not $40.

"By quitting now, he will collect severance of as much as $5-million under the contract." (St. Petersburg Times, April 20, 2004)

I'll see your incompetence and raise you facts. :D

[chm2023]

I meant to type $4, not $40, sorry. And don't be so naive, he was canned. Top executives are never fired, they always "resign to pursue other interests". I am guessing you never worked for a big company? Imagine the USAir website not reporting that their head guy was given the gate, I'm shocked!!! To get the real story go to post-gazette.com (Pittsburgh paper).

[walt]

I meant to type $4, not $40, sorry.

The Devil made you do it? :angry:

[Pete Hanlin]

Last, the cost of healthcare continues to grow at several times the rate of inflation. You may not like the notion of national health care. Fine, I can understand that, but something meaningful needs to be done, and quick. Just standing fast and hoping it will all go away is really, really stupid.
Okay, there has to be a compromise here- you understand that some of us can't stomach the notion of nationalized healthcare. I understand the concept that too many of us do not have an affordable solution to healthcare needs. Now, what- short of the government stepping in and trying to run healthcare- can be done to control costs while still leaving the industry in the hands of the private sector?

I suggest capping lawsuits (if $250,000 isn't enough, let's come up with a reasonable figure- but perhaps we could agree the multi-million $ "pain and suffering lawsuits need to go). That's a minor step.

My other suggestion is that the government set up non-subsidized "group" accounts that citizens can access. In other words, people who are self-employed could procure insurance as part of a large group (which is what allows large companies to get better rates for their employees).

I'm open to a lot of other "fixes," just none that involve the government running the nation's healthcare system!

[chm2023]

Not the devil, something more insidious, age!! Yesterday I got my new Amex card, got out my wallet to take the old one and cut it in half; you can guess the rest, I now have a brand new Amex card in two pieces......

[walt]

Not the devil, something more insidious, age!! Yesterday I got my new Amex card, got out my wallet to take the old one and cut it in half; you can guess the rest, I now have a brand new Amex card in two pieces......

Maybe your hatchet (and keyboard) should be kept out of reach? :D

[walt]

I get the feeling that we're going in circles.

As long as the medical services sector continues to leave the door open for malpractice suits we're not going to resolve the problems. We'll only be reshuffling the deck.

If malpractice goes down, law suits go down
If law suits go down, insurance goes down.

Secondary cost-contributing factors seem to be:

Hospital labor costs.
Hospital management incompetance.
Hospital and doctor staffing requirements for gov't & insurance paperwork compliance.

Insurance company price-fixing and gouging.
Lack of acceptance (as in Steve's case.)
Lack of low-cost plans.

Insurance sales commissions?

The list goes on. At any rate, until the malpractice stuff dramatically decreases, there's no reason to spin our wheels on the rest.

[mrba]

"There you go again." Where do you get your facts?

Maybe from Joseph Goerbles?:)