Speaking seriously about the current health care debates. Let's have some

  • Thread starter Thread starter codman
  • Start date Start date
C

codman

Guest
Do you mean illegals and everyone they know? If you want to see failure in every aspect of socialism, read your history, or look north and east, to the countries that have the failed system. It's called capitalization. Simply put it pays medical people whether they see patients or not. Maybe that's why it takes so long for an appointment. Socialism is not the answer(AKA Democrats).
 
serious and well thought out answers I'm in agreement that we need SOMETHING for those who can'r afford medical care when needed.

We currently have medicare that certain people qualify for.

How concievable is it that we could MODIFY/REVAMP the current medicare system to protect those who can't afford medical coverage?

Rather than create an entire new system that would cost us billions, we could have a slimmer more efficient system that could mandate coverage for those in "desperate need" and save billions at the same time.

At first I t5hought it was far fetched. But is it really....

Thanks everyone!
Sorry about the typos....gramar wasn't on my mind when I posted this. LOL
Beta hat....you aint no liberal! LOL
 
no-one in this country goes without medical care if they need it. i live near a huge clinic in Atlanta that see thousands of illegal immigrants each day.
 
That's kind of what I've always thought. Welfare to work programs with incentives to work and tax breaks for employers who provide health insurance.
 
Currently hospitals are allowed a tax deduction for twice the amount of unpaid debt. It only works when they make a profit.
Shift the coverge to also cover not for profits.
 
Amazingly, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have the same health-care plan. It comes from Massachusetts.. Everyone knows that MA Governor Deval Patrick is a friend of Barack Obama. Deval is taking credit for inheriting the Affordable Health-Care plan called the MA Health Connector. It has the following componants.

-1 The sate negotiated a lower price with health-care insurers. Mostly by doing a per person rate.
-2 Plans include some deductibles, but cover anything you need. Especially ER and preventative medicine.
-3 The poor are still covered and so are the elderly as before.
-4 You get a tax break for having it, and you can deduct premiums too.
-5 You don't have to have it.
-6 A couple can get free coverage for incomes under $41K and a family of 4, under $61K
-7 The state will not pay for ER visits for uninsured as before.
-8 You don't have to have if you are covered at work.
-9 Illegals are not covered
-10 Companies are required to offer it if they have 10 or more employees.
-11 Covers pre existing conditions.
-12 If you prefer a HDTV in every room, and 2 new cars and a Harley for weekends, don't get sick.

Check out the link below and get a MA HC quote.

It could be lowered if we could get the a cap on malpractice suits which are the most costly single line item in any health-care providers budget. We just need to stop ambulance chasing Democrats like John Edwards to vote for it.

Also, Americans pay for reduced drug prices in Canada and other countries where they have UHC. If drug compaines are forced to lowere US prices, up they go in CA, FR and most of Europe.

BTW - Canadians spend 45 percent of their income on taxes, and they say health-care costs are sky-rocketing. What now? Raise taxes? In the end, if there is not profit, no one will want to work. We've already had that test with welfare. I can't imagine doctors wanting to work for less then the average software programmer.
 
That's what we should have been doing all along... The problem with all of this, is that social programs, create the need for social progams... The more we give the more people will need to take. Kind of like the give an inch take a mile thing.

The system we have now works, creating a socialized medical program, will only create havoc in our medical service we see now.

Look, they signed NAFTA, knowing it would create a horrid economy... that way in the future they could pass through things that normally Americans would not want to have... but since they've ruined America they figure now is the time to create the world they want... sad isn't it?
 
As the masses of good citizens sink in Bush,s recession ,all hell will break lose. that's about as much thought as I gots for this insanity.
 
We need to focus on our two more pressing issues ... oil prices and illegal immigration. Oil prices could easily send us into a deep resession .. a depression .. and then do we need 20 million uneducated/undereducated on our welfare roles? .. We better do something about these two problems quickly
 
Medicare is currently a system devised for the elderly and disabled. At present, it doesn't pay the doctors as much as they would like it to so many refuse to accept patients on Medicare.

Medicaid is a program setup for pregnant women, children, and infants. There are a few over 18 years old and under 63 years old that qualify for this program but not many. Here again, medicaid doesn't pay the doctors what they would like so many will not accept patients on medicaid. Dentist are even less likely to accept those on Medicaid. In my hometown there is one dentist who accepts Medicaid and he only does basic dental care so any teens that need a root canal, their wisdom teeth removed, braces, etc. are left without care. This particular dentist is so busy that he can only work on one or two teeth at a time. Many children who come to see him have multiple dental problems and have never seen a dentist until this occasion.

George Bush cut spending on Medicaid this last time around.
 
You mean like SCHIP?

We could have a government run (or merely funded) means-tested health care program.

The only problem with that is that it wouldn't do a lot to cut costs down, because the whole private sector bureaucracy would remain intact. It would solve coverage, but it won't help with costs.

To lower costs, you gotta cut somewhere. Most liberals like me want to cut down (1)profits for drug companies and HMOs through regulation (and maybe the government negotiating directly with drug companies, (2)red-tape and bureaucracy from the HMO administered system, (3)emergency room costs, by giving healthcare to more people so they get treated before things get serious.

Some more neutral proposals I've heard involve using more information technology (something Obama proposed) but I'm skeptical that would save too much money.
 
The Medicare system only BARELY covers those who qualify for it. I believe modifying or revamping the current system in order to cover ALL who can't afford medical coverage is inconceivable. A slimmer, more efficient system? If it gets any slimmer it will cover no one. And who decides who is in "desperate need"? By putting in that qualifier "desperate" you automatically exclude someone. Because there has to be a definition of "desperate", and if you don't meet that definition, you won't get care. Under Medicare as it is, here is one personal example: I am blind in one eye. Medicare will pay a portion (only a portion) of a surgery that would reduce the blind spot that I might see peripherally from that eye. However, due to another condition (myasthenia gravis), the top eyelid droops over that eye, obliterating the peripheral vision field. There is a surgery that would lift that eyelid from the peripheral field. Medicare will not pay for that surgery....they consider it cosmetic. No matter the medical necessity, that procedure is ICD9CM coded as cosmetic....no way they will cover it. So they will partially pay for a surgery to restore part of my vision, but will waste that expense (should I have it done) because they will not pay to have a piece of tissue lifted that would allow me to use my restored vision.
No, I don't think the Medicare system is at all capable of providing coverage to all who can't afford medical care. And it is certainly inadequate to determine who of those are in "desperate need".
 
Back
Top