Healthcare and the Supreme Court

[grannywils]

(snip) Sukeban: So anyway, if my ideas are so bad--please, let's hear some actual alternatives. Ultimately, you can't get blood from a stone, and insurance companies will never be compelled to provide healthcare at cost to consumers. Sure, you can nationalize healthcare and provide care at cost (what I'd prefer), but I don't see that happening anytime soon in the USA. Demand for healthcare must be reduced, otherwise doctors and insurance companies will continue to charge what the market will bear. And again, since a public agency has no real incentive to try and keep costs down (federal credit card), the market can and will bear anything until systemic changes are made to ensure that this does not happen.

 

 

 

@Sukeban, may I start out by telling you that I have not meant to imply that your ideas are bad. More often than not you completely overwhelm me with your ability to nail down an issue and get it completely right (IMO). However, that does not mean that I always agree with your methods of getting there. Nor do I always agree with your solutions. More often than not I do, but not necessarily in this particular case.

 

I thought I had attempted to suggest a solution of sorts by recommending that healthcare providers and insurers not be permitted to gouge consumers in the manner that they have been doing. However, I guess you are sort of correct, as I did not come up with any particular methodolgy for accomplishing this goal.

 

My solution would be nationalizing healthcare, and before anyone faints dead away, I agree with Sukeban that this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon. I do not understand why this frightens so many people. Immediately we will start hearing words like "communisim" and "socialism", and maybe even "pinko blitch" from some radical folk...:dry: I understand why the providers would not care for this approach, as profits would suddenly become more realistic instead of where they are now. What I do not understand is why so many ordinary Americans are frightened by the idea of a nationalized healthcare system. All it can do is help everyone... In addition, there is no doubt that systemic changes need to be made. For example, Sukeban, you frequently refer to the outrageous costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and I totally agree. For example, I know for a fact that doctors routinely order unnecessary tests when a patient (especially an elderly patient) is on Medicare or Medicaid, simply because they know that the cost will be covered by the program. This is one of the systemic changes that I would like to see made. We as patients need to take more of a role in what is being done to us or offered to us. I agree to some extent when you say that "we are not paying for it, so why should we care". But we are paying, because it is our bodies that are being probed, prodded, tested or whatever by these often unnecessary but expensive tests and/or procedures. Medicare fraud is benefitting the medical community, not the patients or the public. It continues to raise the costs to us.

 

I will stop for now, as I need to take a break. See you all later...

 

 

[Aurielius]

 

My solution would be nationalizing healthcare, and before anyone faints dead away, I agree with Sukeban that this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon. I do not understand why this frightens so many people. Immediately we will start hearing words like "communisim" and "socialism", and maybe even "pinko blitch" from some radical folk...:dry: I understand why the providers would not care for this approach, as profits would suddenly become more realistic instead of where they are now. What I do not understand is why so many ordinary Americans are frightened by the idea of a nationalized healthcare system. All it can do is help everyone... In addition, there is no doubt that systemic changes need to be made..

Sigh....Missy I love you too much to call you any of those names but evidently Ginny's and my posts on the fatal weakness of nationalized health care have either not sunk in or are not believed by you. Why not try my capitalistic approach and open the market globally to all providers and let the market force the costs down?

[grannywils]

A, I appreciate your unwillingness to call me any of those names. You are a true gentleman and one of my favorite people to boot. I will admit that your idea of opening the market globally may potentially have merit. I have nothing against capitalism and competition. My concern however, is the same as the one that exists now. What is to prevent global markets to begin gouging once they become entrenched (unless you are also suggesting "regulation"......):facepalm: :whistling:

[Aurielius]

A, I appreciate your unwillingness to call me any of those names. You are a true gentleman and one of my favorite people to boot. I will admit that your idea of opening the market globally may potentially have merit. I have nothing against capitalism and competition. My concern however, is the same as the one that exists now. What is to prevent global markets to begin gouging once they become entrenched (unless you are also suggesting "regulation"......):facepalm: :whistling:

A global market will always have some new contender wanting a share of the action and lower prices will always give them that access to their market share..no regulation needed...their own greed will enforce it. If you want an example look at the global telecommunications market, or have you forgotten the old days of Ma Bell?.

[Lisnpuppy]

I think that there are several solutions being offered and to my friend, The Yankee Gentleman (you know who you are lol) if your ideas aren't being discussed its because folks are caught up in their own ideas at the moment. Honestly I am unsure how what you propose would get us what we need but that is for another discussion. Lets all not forget about the initial post questions (me included.)

 

Now.. again I think things are getting a bit personal or some are taking things personal. Please don't. I like this thread and I don't want to have to request it be closed. I am not comfortable doing a split-personality thing here with posting (but I so like this topic) and moderating but I feel it needs doing and if any think different report it and it will be addressed by another moderator. I would really like to see some of us take a step back and consider. I understand where everyone is coming from and I hope that others feel the same. Emotions run very high and if very specific solutions aren't being given is because to many of us, it isn't that simple. Suke I admire the work and education you have on this topic so do not take that people think as your ideas being bad or your post are bad. I just do not think many of us have moved along enough in our thought process as to have such complete answers. Also part of solutions is identifying specific issues. Be patient and read your own post about trying to hold your tongue...this shows that your emotions are just as engaged as the rest of us. All of us now take a deep breath and a bit of a time out. Thank you and have a nice day.~Lisnpuppy

[HeyYou]

You make a host of valid points, chief of which is, Something Needs To Change. So far, everyone is looking at this from the consumption side, why not take a look at the other side of the equation? If you want to decrease cost, INCREASE SUPPLY. What needs to happen is, the environment that doctors and other health care workers operate in, needs to be a LOT less hostile. Controls need to be put in place so that health care workers aren't basically cowering in terror each time they make a decision. Starting with Tort reform. Make it easier to BE a health care worker, and maybe more folks will be inclined to go into the field, increasing supply.

[grannywils]

@Aurielius

No, unfortunately I have not forgotten the old days of Ma Bell. But in some respects you are making my point. Telecommunications is one thing. Medical care is quite another. Nowadays one can buy a really inexpensive phone that just makes phone calls. Or you can can buy a phone that does everything but wash your dishes. There is a vast difference in the cost of these two items. The same thing holds true for phone service. There are dozens of types of phone service available. The range in prices is phenomenal. Again, they provide a variety of differing coverages, depending on your requirements. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. You basically buy what you can afford and live with the options and/or bells and whistles that come with it. For me a telephone is for making phone calls anyway (i.e. I do come from the old Ma Bell days, after all)

 

However, in my mind when it comes to medical care and prescription drug coverage, I do not believe that it should be necessary for Americans to choose the least expensive "Samsung GT-B2710 phone" if in fact they require the "IPhone 4S" in order to treat whatever condition they may have. It concerns me to think that if we go to the type of competitive global market you are suggesting, it will still be necessary for certain segments of the population to purchase coverage that is less than what they require, based purely on cost.

 

As I have said many times before, it is my belief that every American ought to be able to expect to receive quality medical care and prescription drug coverage of a certain degree that is not dependent solely on income level. I believe that this is where you and I tend to disagree, but I feel strongly that there is a way this can be accomplished. Thus my earlier post.

[HeyYou]

Trouble is, even today, only the very wealthy can afford the kind of coverage you want for everyone. Back in the day, when folks graduated from High School, or college, and went to work for a company, and STAYED THERE for 20 or 30 years, the companies could provide pretty good health coverage, and it was actually affordable. Now, if folks stay in a job more than three years, it is unusual..... no one wants to provide health care for a temporary employee...... and with the advances in 'modern science', there are ever newer, (more expensive...) tests that can be performed, so that when you get dragged into court, you can point and say "Well, I did EVERYTHING possible....."

[Moveing]

I am going to leave my response pretty short.

 

Obama is a corporate robot as much as any other politician is. It is silly to think he passed the bill to help everyday people. I wouldn't trust Bush with any kind of healthcare bill, I see no reason to trust Obama with any kind of healthcare bill.

 

The bill should be repealed and replaced with a form of universal healthcare.

 

See how leftwing critisism works?

First they need a bait, i this case its "Obama is a corporate puppet", i totaly agree with that.

And than, there comes the communist rook solution: universal healthcare.

 

 

This debate is nonsense. The Constitution is total clear about that. The federal Government can rais taxes for Postroads, Army, Navy and a few other things and universal healthcare is not mentiond at all. The government has no authority to do that and the supreme court can not, i say it again can not, interpret the US Constitution. So there is NO WAY to rise taxes or any other kind of wealth redistribution for anything such as healthcare. So this debate is a still birth, its over before the first word. Done.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Moveing

[HeyYou]

I am going to leave my response pretty short.

 

Obama is a corporate robot as much as any other politician is. It is silly to think he passed the bill to help everyday people. I wouldn't trust Bush with any kind of healthcare bill, I see no reason to trust Obama with any kind of healthcare bill.

 

The bill should be repealed and replaced with a form of universal healthcare.

 

See how leftwing critisism works?

First they need a bait, i this case its "Obama is a corporate puppet", i totaly agree with that.

And than, there comes the communist rook solution: universal healthcare.

 

 

This debate is nonsense. The Constitution is total clear about that. The federal Government can rais taxes for Postroads, Army, Navy and a few other things and universal healthcare is not mentiond at all. The government has no authority to do that and the supreme court can not, i say it again can not, interpret the US Constitution. So there is NO WAY to rise taxes or any other kind of wealth redistribution for anything such as healthcare. So this debate is a still birth, its over before the first word. Done.

 

While you may think that way, congress would beg to differ with you. There was nothing in the constitution about a postal service either... yet the government did that.... there is a long list of stuff that doesn't show up in the constitution, that the government does anyway...... life goes on. Technology advances. Things the founding fathers never even dreamed of have become reality. What are we supposed to do? Remain in the 19th century??