Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#15 : August 13, 2011, 07:27:57 AM

wait... what is wrong with free healthcare for the entire country?  who loses out on a healthier society?  Big pharmacy?  Why would you oppose a healthy country?  Boy, I can't wait until all your right wing ideals die off and we actually move on to a better society...

sarcasm, I hope - if not - very misinformed.

jcarruth

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1188
Offline
#16 : August 13, 2011, 08:03:12 AM

Free care isnt free and is a much lower standard of care, especially from a technology standpoint.

High tech medical care costs a lot, either pay for it or do without it but you cant get it for free.

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#17 : August 13, 2011, 09:26:24 AM

Free care isnt free and is a much lower standard of care, especially from a technology standpoint.

High tech medical care costs a lot, either pay for it or do without it but you cant get it for free.

The standard of care isn't much lower, and I have used free health care visiting two countries (U.K. and the commonwealth Canada) before.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45994
Offline
#18 : August 13, 2011, 09:37:02 AM

Free care isnt free and is a much lower standard of care, especially from a technology standpoint.

High tech medical care costs a lot, either pay for it or do without it but you cant get it for free.

The standard of care isn't much lower, and I have used free health care visiting two countries (U.K. and the commonwealth Canada) before.
Oh sure it can - the worsening is occurring before your very eyes as the HC industry is overwhelmed by those who don't pay, those who aren't citizens, and those who impose ridiculous levels of regulatory oversight (administratively) that doesn't improve the cost elements whatsoever.  Checkers for checkers for checker regulators, who recheck costing propriety.  The administrative cost of HC in this country is overwhelming on its' own.  And putting the US government in charge of it (see Barrycare) isn't designed to improve that fact.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#19 : August 13, 2011, 09:55:59 AM

We spend more than any country on earth, and our healthcare isn't better, or on some metrics inferior to countries that offer universal health care. 




dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21078
Offline
#20 : August 13, 2011, 10:16:24 AM

We spend more than any country on earth, and our healthcare isn't better, or on some metrics inferior to countries that offer universal health care.

Actually we don't spent more on a service for service basis. One way that the UK or Canada saves cash is by doing one of two things:
1. Not performing services or delaying it. The average wait time for a specialist in Canada for example is over 2 months whereas in the US it is about 2 weeks.
2. Performing cheaper services. In the UK it is cheaper to resolve a case of aterial blockage than in the US...but as I said before the way they do it is by using an older, cheaper more invasive treatment

There's no doubt our healthcare costs too much, way too much but a lot of that is based around the way insurance is regulated and sold. The simple fact that most people are functionally in a single payer plan - their companies insurance plan - creates little cost incentive to change. Couple that with tax law that makes it highly advantageous to take what your company gives you rather than shopping around and people aren't price savvy. Given the low risk of catastrophic injury I'd trade off a higher annual deductible for lower premiums and come out ahead.  Toss on top of that the way governments regulate plans by making you buy a bundle of services drives the cost up - there are cretain services you have to offer and things like acupuncture or drug rehab are things I can't opt out of no matter what plan I try and buy.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#21 : August 13, 2011, 01:39:30 PM

We spend more than any country on earth, and our healthcare isn't better, or on some metrics inferior to countries that offer universal health care.

Actually we don't spent more on a service for service basis. One way that the UK or Canada saves cash is by doing one of two things:
1. Not performing services or delaying it. The average wait time for a specialist in Canada for example is over 2 months whereas in the US it is about 2 weeks.
2. Performing cheaper services. In the UK it is cheaper to resolve a case of aterial blockage than in the US...but as I said before the way they do it is by using an older, cheaper more invasive treatment

There's no doubt our healthcare costs too much, way too much but a lot of that is based around the way insurance is regulated and sold. The simple fact that most people are functionally in a single payer plan - their companies insurance plan - creates little cost incentive to change. Couple that with tax law that makes it highly advantageous to take what your company gives you rather than shopping around and people aren't price savvy. Given the low risk of catastrophic injury I'd trade off a higher annual deductible for lower premiums and come out ahead.  Toss on top of that the way governments regulate plans by making you buy a bundle of services drives the cost up - there are cretain services you have to offer and things like acupuncture or drug rehab are things I can't opt out of no matter what plan I try and buy.


Exactly, and all of these things were not addressed in the least by Obamacare.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#22 : August 13, 2011, 02:08:44 PM

Why can't states initiate health care programs, anyway? Romney did in Massachusetts, didn't he?


Is state-level debt somehow more attractive than national debt?


Absolutely!

1- If one state totally screws the pooch on their plan, it doesn't sink the whole country. And Govts, both state and Fed. are notorious for screwing the pooch
2. you have 50 different plans, which means 50 times the likelihood of one being great. States can then adjust and borrow ideas from those states with good plans and know what to avoid from the bad ones.
3-State level debt doesn't affect our currency value/money supply, cause inflation or interest rate hikes nearly as much as federal debt. Also there is little foreign ownership of state debt, taxpayers buy state debt for the tax-free interest, China could care less about tax-free interest.
4. Greater control by voters, State legislators are elected by people in their state. With 98 of the 100 Senators and 434 of the 435 House members, I have no vote or say so in their policies. But at the State level it is 39 of 40 in the Senate, 119 of 120 in the House so it is a more direct representation.
5- A state by state system is more responsive to unique issues in that particular state (like more elderly in Florida or greater need for bilingual HC in NM, Ca, Tx or different weather-related HC issues in Hi than in Mn)
6-Because fewer people are involved, a state by state approach is less cumbersome and bureaucratic with far fewer levels of "Mid-Management".
7- State Legislatures tend to be less strictly divided along Party lines and are more concerned with cost/benefit than party politics.
8- National issues that clog any debate (like abortion, illegal immigrants, etc.) are less of an issue at the state level (because there is usually nothing they can do about it) so they cna concentrate on real problems.
9- States already regulate Insurance Cos, so it doesn't have to create entirely new bureaucracies, just adjusting existing ones.


freddy

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3571
Offline
#23 : August 14, 2011, 04:17:01 AM

wait... what is wrong with free healthcare for the entire country?  who loses out on a healthier society?  Big pharmacy?  Why would you oppose a healthy country?  Boy, I can't wait until all your right wing ideals die off and we actually move on to a better society...

Whats wrong with it? It won't be free, instead everyone will see their taxes jump sky high. You ever wonder why gas is $10 a gallon in countries with "free health care" Besides that, once it's "free" then you lose control of what you want and others get to decide, based on economics, if you should get that treatment or not. Oh and those countries with free health care, like England, that is facing riots in the streets because they are just as broke as the US and now they are cutting real time health care. Check out this link, looks like free is gonna cost a few people.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#24 : August 14, 2011, 07:21:50 AM

Why can't states initiate health care programs, anyway? Romney did in Massachusetts, didn't he?


Is state-level debt somehow more attractive than national debt?


Absolutely!

1- If one state totally screws the pooch on their plan, it doesn't sink the whole country. And Govts, both state and Fed. are notorious for screwing the pooch
2. you have 50 different plans, which means 50 times the likelihood of one being great. States can then adjust and borrow ideas from those states with good plans and know what to avoid from the bad ones.
3-State level debt doesn't affect our currency value/money supply, cause inflation or interest rate hikes nearly as much as federal debt. Also there is little foreign ownership of state debt, taxpayers buy state debt for the tax-free interest, China could care less about tax-free interest.
4. Greater control by voters, State legislators are elected by people in their state. With 98 of the 100 Senators and 434 of the 435 House members, I have no vote or say so in their policies. But at the State level it is 39 of 40 in the Senate, 119 of 120 in the House so it is a more direct representation.
5- A state by state system is more responsive to unique issues in that particular state (like more elderly in Florida or greater need for bilingual HC in NM, Ca, Tx or different weather-related HC issues in Hi than in Mn)
6-Because fewer people are involved, a state by state approach is less cumbersome and bureaucratic with far fewer levels of "Mid-Management".
7- State Legislatures tend to be less strictly divided along Party lines and are more concerned with cost/benefit than party politics.
8- National issues that clog any debate (like abortion, illegal immigrants, etc.) are less of an issue at the state level (because there is usually nothing they can do about it) so they cna concentrate on real problems.
9- States already regulate Insurance Cos, so it doesn't have to create entirely new bureaucracies, just adjusting existing ones.

very interesting points -I've done a 180 on the subject

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#25 : August 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM

BHO screwed the pooch so bad on Obamacare that Sarah McLachlan should run ads about him.

You want to fix HC, here's my plan:

step 1- repeal Obamacare ASAP
step 2- set up a Federal Bureau whose ONLY functions are to 1. disburse funding to States 2. Insure each State plan meets requirements of cost control, full inclusion, and an interstate portability system. 3. manage interstate portability.
step 3- eliminate Medicare and Medicaid entirely and pass those programs to each state. (The Fed's budget is now $776 billion less n the red) States would also get a proportion of Medicare taxes.($210B) based on a combination of where tax payers live and where recipients of benefits live.
step 4-give all states a deadline (2 years) to come up with a comprehensive plan that a) covers (almost*) everyone b) controls costs c) is portable if someone moves to a different state.

*allowable exclusions are illegal immigrants, convicted felons, legal immigrants that opt out, active armed forces (they already have a good plan), and people with sufficient wealth to prove "self-insurance"

The best model I have seen is Netherlands.  IMO it would work well in several states with a few tweaks. It is mostly private insurance based but the Insurers are heavily regulated as to costs and they can't refuse coverage based on medical conditions. The Govt. provides a graduated scale of supplements to premiums based on income/ability to pay that slides from 0% to 100% of premiums.

Also, there would be a yearly mediated "negotiation" between insurers, HC providers, and pharma to negotiate and set prices for drugs, procedures, etc. That way an MRI at Hospital A costs the same as an MRI at any other clinic, and big pharma can no longer price gouge. Right now many, many clinics, hospitals, and docs have price X for medicare patients, 75%X for insured, and 25%X for cash patients-this is just milking medicare and insurers driving up premiums and taxes.

In Florida, it would work like this: lets say Fl gets 7% of the $210 billion in medicare taxes= $14.7 billion. About 20% of FL's population (18.5 million) is retired, say another 15% is not covered by an employee plan and has insufficient income for insurance. That means 6.5 million will need some assistance. $14.7B/6.5M= $2261.53 per person/year for public assistance. That is right around the total per capita HC spending in Japan, Canada, UK, Ireland, Finland, etc. So it is very doable.


freddy

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3571
Offline
#26 : August 14, 2011, 01:46:44 PM

The ONLY thing (After obama-fail is repealed) that needs to be done to fix health care is to allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines. When there is only one or two companies offering in a state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem. The ONLY thing government, on any level, should have to do with health care is to ensure it is fair, does not discriminate or cheat.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21078
Offline
#27 : August 14, 2011, 01:49:39 PM


The best model I have seen is Netherlands.  IMO it would work well in several states with a few tweaks. It is mostly private insurance based but the Insurers are heavily regulated as to costs and they can't refuse coverage based on medical conditions. The Govt. provides a graduated scale of supplements to premiums based on income/ability to pay that slides from 0% to 100% of premiums.


The regulation of what is in plan is part of the problem. I don't need the government to tell me I have to pay for things I don't want. For whatever reason - philosophic, relgious whatever things like: acupuncture, chirpractors, abortions, psychiatry, drug/alcohol rehab are all high cost type things that should be optional. As long as states can effectively pack more "mandatories" into coverage you get things like NY having a $3000 per year cost for a 25 year old male and Kentucky having $900. Everyone covers core medical functions it is all the goodies that get tossed in by the states that drive up costs.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#28 : August 14, 2011, 02:08:28 PM


The best model I have seen is Netherlands.  IMO it would work well in several states with a few tweaks. It is mostly private insurance based but the Insurers are heavily regulated as to costs and they can't refuse coverage based on medical conditions. The Govt. provides a graduated scale of supplements to premiums based on income/ability to pay that slides from 0% to 100% of premiums.


The regulation of what is in plan is part of the problem. I don't need the government to tell me I have to pay for things I don't want. For whatever reason - philosophic, relgious whatever things like: acupuncture, chirpractors, abortions, psychiatry, drug/alcohol rehab are all high cost type things that should be optional. As long as states can effectively pack more "mandatories" into coverage you get things like NY having a $3000 per year cost for a 25 year old male and Kentucky having $900. Everyone covers core medical functions it is all the goodies that get tossed in by the states that drive up costs.


Absolutely. There should be a standard "minimum plan" that covers core medical only. Plenty of charitable orgs. that already handle drug rehab. Abortions are elective procedures. Acupuncture??   


freddy

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3571
Offline
#29 : August 14, 2011, 02:18:01 PM


The best model I have seen is Netherlands.  IMO it would work well in several states with a few tweaks. It is mostly private insurance based but the Insurers are heavily regulated as to costs and they can't refuse coverage based on medical conditions. The Govt. provides a graduated scale of supplements to premiums based on income/ability to pay that slides from 0% to 100% of premiums.


The regulation of what is in plan is part of the problem. I don't need the government to tell me I have to pay for things I don't want. For whatever reason - philosophic, relgious whatever things like: acupuncture, chirpractors, abortions, psychiatry, drug/alcohol rehab are all high cost type things that should be optional. As long as states can effectively pack more "mandatories" into coverage you get things like NY having a $3000 per year cost for a 25 year old male and Kentucky having $900. Everyone covers core medical functions it is all the goodies that get tossed in by the states that drive up costs.


Absolutely. There should be a standard "minimum plan" that covers core medical only. Plenty of charitable orgs. that already handle drug rehab. Abortions are elective procedures. Acupuncture??

Hey, here's a quick fix to raising health care costs. Make the illegals pay for their own health care!
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools