Clinton Health Care....Part II

[Gravitymaster 0]

I would probably have less of a problem with govt. "subsidized" healthcare if I believed that's all this was about.

If simply covering people who can't afford insurance was the real issue, then the solution would be pretty simple. Just have a candidate submit financial information proving they can't afford healthcare. After a thorough investigation of their lifestyle and financial situation, the govt. could then subsidize the difference between what they can afford to pay vs the actual cost of medical insurance. Seems like a fairly simple solution because it is.

But, as I said, providing people who can't afford healthcare isn't what this is really about.

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

Quote

if you pay for health insurance already then it will just balance pretty even

I thinks that's what is in debate. I'd like to see the numbers before jumping to that conclusion.

You assumption might just break the bank.

Understandible, but I do not think this would break the bank.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[billvon 3,114]

> Just have a candidate submit financial information proving they
>can't afford healthcare. After a thorough investigation of their lifestyle and
>financial situation, the govt. could then subsidize the difference between
> what they can afford to pay vs the actual cost of medical insurance.
>Seems like a fairly simple solution . . .

I assume that's a joke!

Personally I'd prefer to pay a doctor to take care of the guy than pay an analyst to do a "thorough investigation of their lifestyle and financial situation" and then to calculate "the difference between what they can afford to pay vs the actual cost of medical insurance." (But I assume that's what you meant.)

[Butters 0]

Quote

Understandible, but I do not think this would break the bank.

But is "what you think" the same as "what you can prove".

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

Quote

Understandible, but I do not think this would break the bank.

But is "what you think" the same as "what you can prove".

No, but lets take a chance! Hell we took a chance on Iraq! Oh wait, that wasn't a very good chance was it!?

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> Just have a candidate submit financial information proving they
>can't afford healthcare. After a thorough investigation of their lifestyle and
>financial situation, the govt. could then subsidize the difference between
> what they can afford to pay vs the actual cost of medical insurance.
>Seems like a fairly simple solution . . .

I assume that's a joke!

Personally I'd prefer to pay a doctor to take care of the guy than pay an analyst to do a "thorough investigation of their lifestyle and financial situation" and then to calculate "the difference between what they can afford to pay vs the actual cost of medical insurance." (But I assume that's what you meant.)

I can't understand why you see this as any different than what will happen if Nationalized Healthcare becomes law. It's no different than the checks we had under the old Welfare System. This way only the people who can't afford insurance are subjected to govt. control and restrictions. Unless you actually believe the govt. won't eventually dictate "healthy lifestyles" with the Natl. plan.

[billvon 3,114]

>It's no different than the checks we had under the old Welfare System.

Which wasted a shitload of money, and did little other than provide jobs for thousands of bureaucrats. I'm thinking that should not be a goal.

If you are designing a healthcare system, and you have a limited amount of money available, generally you are better off paying doctors to treat people than bureaucrats to deny them treatment. Just my opinion.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

if you pay for health insurance already then it will just balance pretty even

I thinks that's what is in debate. I'd like to see the numbers before jumping to that conclusion.

You assumption might just break the bank.

I imagine there are a hundred ways to model the economics of this, so pick the one that supports your position.

If employers gave the same amount of money spent for medical in the form of higher salaries, and Uncle Sam didn't end up taxing that money, the balance might be maintained. However, it's higher likely that many companies would follow WalMart and keep the money for profit, esp those that employ a large number. Those people would be worse off. The currently uninsured would probably be better off. And the highly employable types would have more income, but likely more taxes.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>It's no different than the checks we had under the old Welfare System.

Which wasted a shitload of money, and did little other than provide jobs for thousands of bureaucrats. I'm thinking that should not be a goal.

If you are designing a healthcare system, and you have a limited amount of money available, generally you are better off paying doctors to treat people than bureaucrats to deny them treatment. Just my opinion.

Generally if you have a system offering something for nothing without any checks or balances people will abuse it ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>It's no different than the checks we had under the old Welfare System.

Which wasted a shitload of money, and did little other than provide jobs for thousands of bureaucrats. I'm thinking that should not be a goal.

If you are designing a healthcare system, and you have a limited amount of money available, generally you are better off paying doctors to treat people than bureaucrats to deny them treatment. Just my opinion.

Well, if you want to get right down to it, I'm still in favor of tax free Medical Savings Accounts with a catostrophic component as the best solution for those who can afford it. I'm simply addressing the best course for those for whom claim MSAs aren't an affordable option.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>If you are designing a healthcare system, and you have a limited amount of money available, generally you are better off paying doctors to treat people than bureaucrats to deny them treatment. Just my opinion.

Why do you hate the children of bureaucrats so much? They need health care, food and a free education also. Please think of the children (of bureaucrats).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I imagine there are a hundred ways to model the economics of this, so pick the one that supports your position.

That's the plan.

Actually the plan is to select the 10 that support my position (stay away from socialist health care).

The 90 that disagree (those with no health care have more free time, and MUCH MORE motivation, so more variations of the pro-position will flood the market)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,114]

>Generally if you have a system offering something for nothing without
>any checks or balances people will abuse it . . .

Who said anything about "no checks and balances?"

Police service is available to anyone; they have checks and balances. ATC separation services are available to anyone (with even a student license) - they have checks and balances. Roads are available to anyone with a driver's license - they have checks and balances.

"Available to everyone" does not equal "no checks and balances."

[Butters 0]

Quote

Who said anything about "no checks and balances?"

I thought you did ...

Quote

If you are designing a healthcare system, and you have a limited amount of money available, generally you are better off paying doctors to treat people than bureaucrats to deny them treatment. Just my opinion.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Generally if you have a system offering something for nothing without
>any checks or balances people will abuse it . . .

Who said anything about "no checks and balances?"

Police service is available to anyone; they have checks and balances. ATC separation services are available to anyone (with even a student license) - they have checks and balances. Roads are available to anyone with a driver's license - they have checks and balances.

"Available to everyone" does not equal "no checks and balances."

I agree, which is why I can't understand why you have a problem with checks and balances that include determining whether a person has a real need for a Govt. subsidy.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You know, I am sick of people stating that having the government take over health care is a bad thing. I was in the militray for 6 years and still to this day we had the best doctors, the best equipment, and almost any type of coverage (including plastic surgery).

Let me just say my experience with military health care wasn't as good as yours. I don't trust the government to do anything effeciently when it comes to $

steveOrino

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I imagine there are a hundred ways to model the economics of this, so pick the one that supports your position.

That's the plan.

Actually the plan is to select the 10 that support my position (stay away from socialist health care).

The 90 that disagree (those with no health care have more free time, and MUCH MORE motivation, so more variations of the pro-position will flood the market)

Taking away the political element - I don't think it's possible to accurately predict how it will play out. You have to make assumptions on behavior and odds are the assumptions will be wrong. So when HC says her plan will save us $100B and Rand says it will cost us $2T, both are pulling numbers of out Reagan's ass (the bottomless well of convenient statistics).

So any wholesale change is a gamble. Unfortunately, the problem doesn't lend itself to incremental solutions.

[skydivermom 0]

***You can't choose not to be sick.



__________________________________________________
That's true, but you can chose to take care of yourself in such a way that sickness will be unlikely.
I have made a choice that I do not believe "socialized medicine" will support.

My choice is natural medicine. I do have a natural healthcare professional who is awesome, but he does not take insurance. That's okay with me, because I feel my money is much better spent visiting him. My uncle saw a homeopathic doc a few times and his cancer (which was supposed to be terminal) is GONE. He paid all of it out of his own pocket, but he still paid a lot less than his part of the cost of chemo (which didn't do the job).

Requiring me to have medical insurance would be a waste. If there was a MAJOR MEDICAL plan or CATASTROPIC PLAN.....then I would surely take advantage of that. My family of four is covered through my husband's employer with decent health insurance, and it's nice to know that I have that "safety net" in case of an emergency.

But my first choice will always be the natural way. Somehow I don't think the govt. will support that. Thoughts anyone?

(Holy CRAP did I just post in SPEAKER'S CORNER!!......is there a prescription drug for shock?!)

Mrs. WaltAppel

All things work together for good to them that love God...Romans 8:28

[skydivermom 0]

Quote

Quote

Anybody remember $150 hammers and a toilet seats?

That wasn't what they really paid though...that money was riding to fund something else. What, I have no idea.

It was for ROZWELL of course.

Mrs. WaltAppel

All things work together for good to them that love God...Romans 8:28

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, I am sick of people stating that having the government take over health care is a bad thing. I was in the militray for 6 years and still to this day we had the best doctors, the best equipment, and almost any type of coverage (including plastic surgery).

Let me just say my experience with military health care wasn't as good as yours. I don't trust the government to do anything effeciently when it comes to $

Why, were you a grunt?

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Royd 0]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sound like you dont care for the I GOT MINE and I OWE you NUTHIN crowd..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


right you are, as I stated in my first post - 'every man for himself' is not a way to run a country,

Quote

it's a way to run an anarchy

There is no such thing. Someone always wants to be the big dog.

[Royd 0]

Quote

(Holy CRAP did I just post in SPEAKER'S CORNER!!......is there a prescription drug for shock?!)

It's the homeopathic cure for Bonfire.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is so obviously silly it doesn't warrant a rebuttal.

Funny, I feel the same about a lot of your responses.

How can you have feelings about responses when we are wasting all that money in Iraq?

If it wasn't for the War for Oil, we could have thrown another $10 trillion into the War on Poverty.

I was mocking that conversation. But if you want a response...

"If it wasn't for the War for Oil, we could have had more tax cuts. Which will help in the war on poverty MUCH more than the government pissing it away on futile political gestures in order to buy votes from impoverished people."

I got that, I was mocking your comment.

Tax cuts can only result when we have been overcharged to begin with. Somehow people view tax surpluses as "our money" once the govt. gets their hands on it.!!

No, tax cuts can result when our leaders decide that the next few generations can pay for our spending.

I see that the US National Debt has just passed $9 TRILLION! What a great gift to our kids and grandkids, thanks mostly to Reagan and 2 Bushes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, I am sick of people stating that having the government take over health care is a bad thing. I was in the militray for 6 years and still to this day we had the best doctors, the best equipment, and almost any type of coverage (including plastic surgery).

Let me just say my experience with military health care wasn't as good as yours. I don't trust the government to do anything effeciently when it comes to $

My experience with the military health care system was also very good, specific to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The rest of the junk gets funneled through HealthNet's TriCare and I don't have any different opinion of it other than private insurance.

Getting to use the system is still a challenge in the military though, referrals, etc. So, I have a mixed opinion on it from that perspective.

The quality of care I've received has been outstanding, but I know the system still has issues related to conditions that do not apply to me.

I'm still waiting for the argument from someone that convinces me that government bureaucracy is a good thing...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No, tax cuts can result when our leaders decide that the next few generations can pay for our spending.

Dont you know... most of the Administration believes that they will already be RAPTURED OUT... so they will not have to pay anything back.

All of the athiests and non-true believers who are LEFT BEHIND will have to pay at least while the Anti-Christ is running things till Armegeddon happens.