Marc wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 9:07am:

This is the very definition of politics.

Quote:

That's what the last car salesman I encountered tried to convince me of. I told him different. I said that I know what this car cost his dealership, therefore I want him to tell me how much profit he needs to make on it (because I am a reasonable man). I also tell him that it needs to be his best offer because I'm headed down the road to ask the same question of his competitors.

Brew wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 10:23am:


Brew, I think we're on the same page here: The costs have to be derived from what people are prepared to pay, not from what the health providers claim their service costs.

Loopy wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 11:18am:

No. There needs to be consensus from the people that they are prepared to contribute X% of their income each month. This will determine the amount available and from there (obviously with a good deal of bargaining and concessions by all stakeholders) budgets can be set. 

There is nothing quite as inefficient as a business/organisation whose expenditure is not moderated by a budget. Budgeting and allocating funds would help ensure that all Americans receive value for money.

Oh, I left out one thing in my "rant".  Adam, my son, and CH sufferer, is a very hard working individual.  His employer does not provide health insurance, or even offer it at a reduced rate.  So-----he has none.  He works hard, but does not make a ton of money.  Some weeks we scrape by to get him O2, but that is one thing he will never be without.  We may not have anything else, but he will have that.  So, yes that is another reason that I would be willing to look at a nationally [b][i]OFFERED[b][i] plan.

All, working, tax paying US citizens are paying for all, non-working, non-tax paying citizens by way of Medicade.  Perhaps Adam should shove his dignity and personal committments in a drawer and become dependent on the Medicare system.  I hear that they are well taken care of.  It would save him $150 everytime he sees the doctor, not to mention the medical testing and the O2.  Therefore, he rarely sees the doc.  I am fortunate enough that I have a raport with her and she will generally listen to Adam via me and let him try what he wants to try.  But it shouldn't have to be like that.

Sorry if I offended anyone.  I get very territorial when it comes to my children.

Love y'all anyway
Louise

Louise Barham wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 3:27pm:


Spoken like a true Mother... that's one thing I can say for sure... I totally agree with you 101%

LadyLuv

Although I don't want to offend any one either, but if the shoe fit... so be it

Quote:


Wait a minute, I thought you were arguing *for* the government option.

Since when has our government operated on a budget?  Why do you think a large percentage of us are SCARED to death of yet another government run money pit?  Jesus wept...

Charlie wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 7:10pm:



Charlie:

This is a point that my dad and I have discussed a few times the problem is two fold one on the Medical "Business" side of things and the other on the Ins. "Business" side of things both are in the Business of Making money.   In the mean time people who can't afford it or are on non accepted forms of medical aid, insurance, savings plan or what ever other option you can think of are left out in the cold.

Until both are put into some kind of checks and balances we will continue to be in a vicious cycle.

Which leads us right back to the issue at hand and Gov. involvement which anyway you look at it ISN'T necessarily a Good Idea to fix the problems.

The only viable option that I can see and even it has it's draw backs is to "regulate" the medical and ins. industries with some sort of over site and without making the people pay more than they are now and not making the people get ins (or pay for) gov provided ins. on top of what they are already paying for it. (You know it will be added on top of the deductions on your paycheck that they are already taking out.)(** I am mainly speaking of those of us that do have ins. even though it may be a crappy plan.)

The problem with ins. co.'s is that, if they aren't making money/profit they drop parts of our coverage in order to make a profit.  This shouldn't be allowed to happen, not with Medical coverage at least.

The problem with the medical system is that they are allowed to pick and choose which types of insurance they will accept.  (Frankly I can't see how a Doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath can do this, because in the end he or she is causing harm, when he denies a patient care for these reasons. **One Phrase in Hippocratic oath is "First Do No Harm!") Not to mention the Sky Rocketing costs of medical care, they charge 20$ for 1 freakin tylenol in a hospital for crying out loud, (that was what I was charged for one the last time I was in the hospital which was years ago).

Just my  again.   

Buzz, understanding the whole story behind US healthcare is a very complicated thing. To make it a little easier...

In the US Social Security is said to run out of money in a few years, the same for Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Money has and is paid into those systems always, and are separated on our pay statements.

Our inept government does not separate those funds paid in for any of the above. Are we to expect that somehow they will see the light????

For those of us that can see the light and the way our gov is, the biggest problems with health care costs are not being addressed. It's not politically profitable.

Don

JustNotRight wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 9:25pm:


An interesting post, Ginger, thanks.

I think I see a solution here: There needs to be a standard/basic insurance plan that is acceptable across the board. This plan must be offered by all insurers (government subsidised???) and must guarantee a minimal level of treatment. It can form the basis of every one's medical insurance and the insurers can then offer enhancements which patients can purchase.

Skyhawk5 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:50am:


I wouldn't be familiar with an expression of what "politically profitable" means, but there are aspects of what are fundamentally politically unpopular, such as asserting "those of us that can see the light" about gov and costs. 

Nonetheless, political entrepreneurship has been shown to be prevalent.

What has seemed inherent to the extent of more than a creeping suspicion in the recent past and been a proven before, private enterprise has shown, perhaps through lobbying now, the ability to extract huge sums from federal operations, a main motivation for paid voice on an issue.  Not FOR anything unless a way can be seen to make gov a device for exploitation. 
  We don't have a Teddy Roosevelt (give'm Hell Harry made a V.P. ticket in part on his popularity contributing here) to represent us in this arena and a basic fear could arise of a continuance and even an acceleration as a result from this kind of legislation. 
  In some areas, it appears companies know how to win bids from gov, but not how to do the work, making extreme waste.  Whose interests are really being looked out for when it may be a clinging impression gov is for public interest?  What is the design in place presently that has been engineered by this political entrepreneurship? 

Suspicion is warranted that any legislation decided may see its way to profit commerce more than individuals.  The track record is subpar to what we might consider efficient business with our money, whereas we seem the investors without input or say in the choices implementing programs.  Democracry being subservient and ignored when money is talking much louder.

Change from the chance of this scenario is a good idea, trusting it will actually happen is in part a problem, but the future of healthcare can seem a luxury item expense.







Any resemblence to real life would be accidental.

Well, being the bean counter I am.... Since I went on medicare in March, I figure I'm ahead for the year.... It's costing me about 12% of my SS to have medicare plus a supplement policy, BUT it's the first time in years I've been ABLE to AFFORD to go to the doctor.

My medications (that I HAVE to have) have been costing me over $200 a month - they now cost me about $15 a month (worth the $38 a month I pay for the extra coverage for RX). My doctor can run tests that he needs without me thinking how to pay for them (my supplement covers what medicare doesn't) and I don't pay anything out of pocket.

If medicare is socialized medicine - then I'm all for it. Of course there's some fraud in it - and that needs to be eliminated (checks and balances would cure that), but it's helped a lot of seniors who can't afford to be sick.

That's my opinion and doesn't represent the views of this forum probably.

Hugs BD