TomAiello 26 #151 January 4, 2005 QuoteNo, I think the attitude of many is....why should I have to give up anything? One of the primary differences between collectivists and individualists is that collectivists presume the individual is most important as part of the group, while individualists assign the group importance only as the result of it being a joint barometer of multiple individuals. I'm more of an individualist--but I think those two questions are equivalent. "What do we give up?" Is the same as "what do I give up?" When the "I" in question is part of the group forming the "we".-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #152 January 4, 2005 But how do you define the WE? I define the WE, as people...humans...more narrowly as US Citizens. When one American helps another American, the WE loses nothing. When you view WE as, those of us with more than the bare necessities of life, and THEM as those living hand to mouth, then yes, when you help out those other American human beings then the WE of the haves is giving up something to the THEMS of the havenots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #153 January 4, 2005 QuoteRight now? Formalize the two-tier system. Make a baseline level of care available to everyone. This sounds like a very good idea. Whould you administer the 2nd tier privately or publicly? I'm thinking a baseline tier provided by a government "crash net" with an upper tier of private insurance (and medicine) sounds pretty good. I'd worry about all the public medical centers we have, and how to transition them, though. That's pretty much how health care is run in Malaysia, for example. They have a very basic "public" system (frankly, I'd want ours to be better, especially for emergency care, which is pretty scary there) and a private, for-profit health care system which is pretty much on par with US healthcare. Is that the kind of system you are picturing? Preventive medicine free to all, most emergency (accident) care free to all, other procedures paid for?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #154 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteRight now? Formalize the two-tier system. Make a baseline level of care available to everyone. This sounds like a very good idea. Whould you administer the 2nd tier privately or publicly? I'm thinking a baseline tier provided by a government "crash net" with an upper tier of private insurance (and medicine) sounds pretty good. I'd worry about all the public medical centers we have, and how to transition them, though. That's pretty much how health care is run in Malaysia, for example. They have a very basic "public" system (frankly, I'd want ours to be better, especially for emergency care, which is pretty scary there) and a private, for-profit health care system which is pretty much on par with US healthcare. Is that the kind of system you are picturing? Preventive medicine free to all, most emergency (accident) care free to all, other procedures paid for? Wow....did you get that from John Kerry's website? Because that's pretty much what his health care plan consisted of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #155 January 4, 2005 >Whould you administer the 2nd tier privately or publicly? Administered publically, operated privately. Basically similar to the medicare system, but greatly expanded, and with fewer procedures covered. This wouldn't be that much of a change of direction - medicare currently covers anyone of any age with severe kidney disease, for example. The two issues would be funding and covered procedures. Funding would end up being about a wash from the payer's perspective; we're paying for both our own health care and indigent's health care now anyway, and using the massive bureacracies of insurance companies/state run hospitals to do it. An average (working) person would see an increase in his federal taxes and a decrease in his state taxes if such a plan were implemented. If he opted out of his HMO (which he would likely do, since basic care is now available to anyone) he'd end up saving money overall. Someone who chose to keep paying into his HMO would end up spending more overall. Covered procedures would be fought over incessantly, which I don't think is a bad thing, since they have to remain in flux. Right now bypass surgery is incredibly expensive, but non-invasive bypass surgery is becoming practical, and thus you could see a change in cost in the near future which would drive a change to what's covered. One reason this won't happen is because it would mean death to most medical insurance companies/HMO's, and they have become very powerful of late. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #156 January 4, 2005 Consiser the profit potential of allopathic medicine vs. alternatives. Those profits (about 40% annually in pharmaceuticals) is indeed keeping our healthcare system from operating at full potential. One reason so many people / doctors favor integrated medicine.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #157 January 4, 2005 Those profits are also driving research and development that makes healthcare better for all of us (and, eventually, for lots of people who didn't contribute to the profits, usually because they couldn't afford it).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #158 January 4, 2005 QuoteWow....did you get that from John Kerry's website? Because that's pretty much what his health care plan consisted of. I don't think that's what Kerry had in mind. I did plenty of reseach into it (remember, my wife is a doctor, so we're fairly interested in what's coming down the pipe). However, it is possible I misunderstood his plan. Can you explain it in greater detail?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #159 January 4, 2005 I hardly find it fair that pharmaceutical company get subsidized research funds, and pass those costs onto patients. Not to mention the tax loopholes.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #160 January 4, 2005 One small aspect was to provide basic level medical insurance to those who do not get it from their employer and cannot afford it. All the details are still on his website. QuoteBy extending state-based programs, the Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of coverage for the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid. In exchange, states would expand coverage for families up to 200 percent of poverty and for childless adults up to 100 percent of poverty. As a result, the Kerry-Edwards plan will extend reliable coverage to: 26.7 million Americans who are currently uninsured 95 percent of all Americans Every child Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
