senator Franken

[modhatter]

Actually I think HaHa has a point. Though I don't consider us a third world country and there are a couple of other segments of our population I think he left out. I just don't claim to know the percentages. I had an eye opening experience last week when my housekeeper came to my house. (She is a white US Citizen - not illegal) I asked her her feelings on the health care debate.
She told me she was opposed to it. I asked her why and she responded to me “BECAUSE IT’S FREE” I was puzzled by her answer, so I asked her what did she mean: Its Free?

She then told me she never has paid for health care and she raised three kids without spending one penny on health care. She told me she just goes down to the Community Center and fills out a yellow paper and takes it to the Emergency Room, and she is treated free of charge for whatever she needs. She told me she has had several procedures done and so have her boys at no cost to her what so ever.

I told her it wasn’t free. That the cost of her FREE treatment was being passed down to the rest of us who are paying for their insurance and this has caused an unsustainable problem for the rest of us . She stated, and I quote. “I am sorry. If the government is stupid enough to pay for it and let it happen, why shouldn’t I take advantage of it? Everyone I know does this. None of my friends or family has ever had health insurance and they all get treated for whatever they need.” Then she went on about her best friend who was in a bad auto accident and needed extensive treatment, including rehabilitation therapy.. She did mention that she had to go see a special attorney who got all the charges dismissed for her.

So this is a segment of the population who would not qualify for medicade but yet don't earn enough money to pay the premiums for health insurance. The feeling I got from her however, was even if she did have the money, she wouldn't pay for it, cause as she says "It's Free". That is why I feel that the population as a whole must be forced to carry insurance. It could be prorated according to income, but you still need to contribute some amount to the pot. I don't know the number of people my housekeeper represents. But I do know that a provision for mandatory insurance is necessary to elliminate this problem to be able to pay for the money going out in claims

I am very much in favor of health care reform. I want to see something pass that has a chance of working. But I think we need to take the "Free" out of the equation.

 

[eridanus]

If we could move to the state level with health care programs and get the Feds out of the mix I think that some of the smaller states might successfully go to a Swiss type system.

The states could do this now. With the exclusion of Mass., nothing has happened.

Having the Federal government mandate profoundly complex plan to to every State and person in the country is a mistake of huge proportions.

Besides the obvious rejoinder, why would this be true? If not the Feds, who?

Never the less unless basically every tax payer in the country steps up to oppose this monstrosity coming through the congress.

I wrote my Congressling asking for universal health care with no underwriting.

 

[M Paquette]

A Modest Proposal

Senator Franken might not like this, but in the interest of preserving the truly competitive capitalist free market our great country is founded on, I'd like to make a modest proposal.

Make health care and medical insurance illegal.

Let's face it. Private health insurance is socialism, worse, privatized Marxism. It takes from each employer according to their ability, and distributes to each claimant according to their need. Oh there's a little capitalism on the top as profits are skimmed off the cashflow, but it's fundamentally a wealth redistribution tax levied on employers and the rare individual buying insurance.

This would naturally have an impact on the health care industry. Health care would become a Pay As You Go service. If you can't pay, you don't get service. Oh, this would probably have some social impact, but the market will inevitably adjust. Some relaxation of current laws, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, along with the revocation of laws and regulations favoring special interest groups such as the AMA might be needed to permit a proper free market to develop.

Those of us who have prudently saved for a rainy day, and set aside funds to address the inevitable infirmities of old age will of course be able to enjoy the services we have become used to. Indeed, as the customer base shrinks relative to the available supply of health care services, the Invisible Hand of the marketplace will act to lower our expenses.

As for the remainder of the populace, again the inevitable forces of the marketplace will make adjustments. Alternatives to traditional medical practices will arise to serve these communities, with more affordable lower-cost providers appearing. Barbers, for example, may resume the traditional practices of removing tumors, pulling teeth, stitching wounds, and of course, bloodletting, in addition to their tonsorial activities. Hospital services for those who cannot afford modern medical care will have to rely on charitable organizations. Those organizations with a low labor cost, such as religious orders, may become the predominant operator of such facilities. Benedictine Hospital may become a good franchise organization to seed this market.

The differences in care, and resulting health, well-being, and lifespan may result in the return of class distinctions, as casual observation will readily reveal the nature of care that a mature adult has received over the course of their life.

Novel economic opportunities may arise from this partitioning of care. For example, a person in the traditional market needing modern medical care for themselves or a family member, but unable to pay for this in cash, may be able to engage in barter for a needed service. They might be able to barter a kidney or liver lobe in exchange for treatment of leukemia in a child. Again, a relaxation of certain anticompetitive laws may be necessary to permit a healthy free market to develop.

This proposal completely eliminates any concerns over a public vs private insurance conflict, insurance portability, coverage of pre-existing conditions, pre-approval of treatment, or other insurance difficulties. The proposal should satisfy all those who want no government interference in their health care coverage, as it establishes an essentially unregulated free market. If no one has insurance, they can hardly be turned away because of a lack of insurance.

 

[clifp]

Senator Franken might not like this, but in the interest of preserving the truly competitive capitalist free market our great country is founded on, I'd like to make a modest proposal.

Make health care and medical insurance illegal.

.

Excellent.

An alternative based on another famous writer's very popular sentiment.

The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers the second thing we do is kill all the politicians, doctors, and insurance company execs and start over.

 

[Midpack]

Three words: Lower physician salaries.

Actually it's more than that. We pay considerably higher administrative fees (insurance providers et al) than any other country for starters. There are other differences...

 

[Texas Proud]

.....The mind boggling fact for me is that the gap between the haves and the have nots. My mind is being boggled every day by the distortions in the debate about health care. ....

.


[MODERATOR EDIT]

Why should health care be any different than anything else between the haves and the have nots The 'haves' have better housing, better cars, better food, better vacations... better almost everything... because they PAY to have better... why can they not pay to have better health care?

I just don't think society owes a heart transplant to the homeless drunk on the corner just because he has a bad ticker... which I would assume would be the case in the new health care system... the problem is where do you draw the line... I do not have an answer for that...

 

[Texas Proud]

We are down in the dumps about this. Maybe August will let people vent and they can get back to work in September. Even if we have some patchwork it won't necessarily make things worse. HIPAA portability rules didn't make things worse and it helped people moving from job to job and pushed the states to have a last resort plan if you came off of a group plan. That helped a significant amount of people even though it was patchwork and wasn't enough (no cost limitations and nothing for the uninsured unless they came off of a group plan).

I agree with the value of HIPAA.... and I can see a few laws that also change how insurance is provided.... but none of what I see is actually health care COST reform... to me it appers that what is being proposed is to insure the uninsured... and let's hope that costs come down... I just don't see it happening... I do not see a doctor doing anything less than what they are currently doing...

I did see a Dr. on TV the other day... and he said that the cost of health care is directly attributable to how FAT we are.... that they can show that fatter people cost more and normal people cost less... across the board, in all locations...



SOOOO... why not have a fat tax to pay for the new system? The people who cause the problems should pay for the problem... (and it will hit me on this suggestion... just not horribly bad...)

 

[Texas Proud]

In the 2000 survey, Switzerland spent the most per-capita of all European countries, US $3,216, compared to the US spending at US $4,631. By GDP, in 2000 the US spent 13.2% of GDP on healthcare, while Switzerland spent 10.3%. In the 2005 survey the US spent 15.4% of GDP while Switzerland spent 11.4%.

Wait times and quality of treatment are considered to be similar or slightly better than in the US.

I find comparing the Swiss system to the US to be interesting because they just recently (1997) moved from a system very much like what the US had to a system relying on non-government insurance coverage, with mandated coverage for all. The government specifies the basic services to be covered, and what a basic policy must look like in terms of copay, deductible, and maximum out of pocket. Any company offering insurance has to offer a policy meeting those standards, but may also offer other policies, with different deductibles, additional covered services, etc.

They don't have the morass of government healthcare plans (Medicare/Medicaid/TRICARE/SCHIP, etc), instead providing a simple subsidy for those who could not otherwise afford coverage to bring the cost below about 10% of income.

The insurers have a guaranteed market, in exchange for meeting regulatory requirements on plans that they offer.

And if this is true (and I do not have any reason to disbelieve)..... then I would say that a Swiss system might be a good way to go..

But I still do not see how this system cut costs in the health care system... maybe the admin of the system, but not in the system itself...

 

[Texas Proud]

Actually I think HaHa has a point. Though I don't consider us a third world country and there are a couple of other segments of our population I think he left out. I just don't claim to know the percentages. I had an eye opening experience last week when my housekeeper came to my house. (She is a white US Citizen - not illegal) I asked her her feelings on the health care debate.
She told me she was opposed to it. I asked her why and she responded to me “BECAUSE IT’S FREE” I was puzzled by her answer, so I asked her what did she mean: Its Free?

She then told me she never has paid for health care and she raised three kids without spending one penny on health care. She told me she just goes down to the Community Center and fills out a yellow paper and takes it to the Emergency Room, and she is treated free of charge for whatever she needs. She told me she has had several procedures done and so have her boys at no cost to her what so ever.

I told her it wasn’t free. That the cost of her FREE treatment was being passed down to the rest of us who are paying for their insurance and this has caused an unsustainable problem for the rest of us . She stated, and I quote. “I am sorry. If the government is stupid enough to pay for it and let it happen, why shouldn’t I take advantage of it? Everyone I know does this. None of my friends or family has ever had health insurance and they all get treated for whatever they need.” Then she went on about her best friend who was in a bad auto accident and needed extensive treatment, including rehabilitation therapy.. She did mention that she had to go see a special attorney who got all the charges dismissed for her.

So this is a segment of the population who would not qualify for medicade but yet don't earn enough money to pay the premiums for health insurance. The feeling I got from her however, was even if she did have the money, she wouldn't pay for it, cause as she says "It's Free". That is why I feel that the population as a whole must be forced to carry insurance. It could be prorated according to income, but you still need to contribute some amount to the pot. I don't know the number of people my housekeeper represents. But I do know that a provision for mandatory insurance is necessary to elliminate this problem to be able to pay for the money going out in claims

I am very much in favor of health care reform. I want to see something pass that has a chance of working. But I think we need to take the "Free" out of the equation.

I bet that in the new system it will be 'free' for her.... she more than likely does not make enough to have to pay anything for insurance... and if you do not have to pay, you might as well use it for free...

 

[MichaelB]

Why should health care be any different than anything else between the haves and the have nots

The 'haves' have better housing, better cars, better food, better vacations... better almost everything... because they PAY to have better... why can they not pay to have better health care?

There are certain standards we have set as a society. We have agreed that everyone should have access to a minimum amount of food, shelter, education and health care. Those that cannot provide for themselves will have these things provided for them through public programs – medicade, food stamps, housing aid. It is part of an enlightened society that cares for all it’s members and acknowledges that some may suffer a lack of minimum standards not from their own fault but other reasons – illness, calamity, birth, etc.

I just don't think society owes a heart transplant to the homeless drunk on the corner just because he has a bad ticker... which I would assume would be the case in the new health care system... the problem is where do you draw the line... I do not have an answer for that...

I am not aware of any proposal to do what you use as an example – and it is quite extreme. Regarding standards, they exist today. The problem with these standards is 1) they discriminate based on employment 2) they exploit the financially weak and benefit the financially strong, 3) they allow companies to choose between reimbursing or denying service when they benefit financially from the choice, 4) they are established by constituents with vested interests and 5) they are rife with conflict of interest.

 

[Midpack]

There are certain standards we have set as a society. We have agreed that everyone should have access to a minimum amount of food, shelter, education and health care. Those that cannot provide for themselves will have these things provided for them through public programs – medicade, food stamps, housing aid. It is part of an enlightened society that cares for all it’s members and acknowledges that some may suffer a lack of minimum standards not from their own fault but other reasons – illness, calamity, birth, etc.

The $64,000 question is what are the minimums? I would support providing access to those who are there truly 'through no fault of their own,' but we're already including people who are there by virtue of their faults in part or entirely. For that reason, unfortunately the minimum has to be close to poverty/subsistence to discourage anyone who can do better - to do better.

 

[REWahoo]

This thread migrated from a discussion of health care reform to a purely political exchange. It has been closed.

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"