That is a good idea. Give them a fair chance, and let them succeed or fail to provide the service as they will, but let them be well aware of the consequences.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
ManusJustus said:
I don't believe an actual bill has been proposed, just talk about what would be in a bill, but I agree that there is a lot more to be done for America's healthcare system than just who provides healthcare. Something like Medicare will always be costly if doctors can use it as a cash cow by subjecting patients to unnecessary tests (which can be fixed by making doctors wage's salary based), and doctors will always have to charge patients more if they pay $50,000 a year in malpractice insurance (which can be fixed with tort reform). |
Of all the bills going through both houses none have involved tort reform, and expecting tort reform from the Democrats is a lot like expecting an assault weapon ban from the Republicans. On top of that, there are several reasons why so many unnecessary tests and procedures are performed besides greedy doctors (like malpractice lawsuits, doctors treating symptoms of preventable disorders like obesity rather than the problem, and doctors who are too dependant on technology to diagnose illnesses)
| Kasz216 said:
In republican states specialsits are way overpaid and general practioners are underpaid. In democratic states general practioners are underpaid and specialists are overpaid. |
Did you mean to say the same thing twice?
Words Of Wisdom said:
Did you mean to say the same thing twice? |
No. Meant to say Democrats overpay GP's and underpay specialists.
As for the "Trigger option" keep in mind that even the Obama administration doesn't expect much to change healthcare wise until the middle of his second term.
And that's if it passed today.
Truth is... the democrats just want this in so they have a built in excuse for the next couple elections when we're spending trillions of dollars before any actual healthcare benefits kick in... all while people are paying fines for not having health insurance.
Kasz216 said:
No. Meant to say Democrats overpay GP's and underpay specialists.
As for the "Trigger option" keep in mind that even the Obama administration doesn't expect much to change healthcare wise until the middle of his second term. And that's if it passed today.
|
On top of this, legislating that insurance companies are not allowed to refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions will (likely) force “Insurance” costs to be much higher because they will be forced to accept high cost clients while low cost clients stopped paying for insurance because there was no longer any need to get insurance while healthy and maintain insurance in case you became unhealthy.
HappySqurriel said:
On top of this, legislating that insurance companies are not allowed to refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions will (likely) force “Insurance” costs to be much higher because they will be forced to accept high cost clients while low cost clients stopped paying for insurance because there was no longer any need to get insurance while healthy and maintain insurance in case you became unhealthy. |
Yeah. I'm interested to see how they get around that...
It will probably work like Dental insurance... and they'll "Stagger" it. You'll need to pay insurance for 6-12 months before your coverage starts. With your balance being refunded to you or your next of kin opon termination of the plan.
The the whole idea of a trigger mechanism is total bullshit.
Why do I say that?
I'm glad you asked.
The way I see it, given the current debate over health care reform, in the mid to late 19th century vernacular, "that trigger has done been pulled".
From what I've heard, $400,000,000,000 (yes FOUR HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS) a year are siphoned out of the system for executive pay (must be nice to get money you haven't WORKED for) and dividends to stockholders.
I posted this list in another thread, these are JUST the CEOs of the six worst offenders:
Stephen J. Hemsley UnitedHealth CEO
2007 Compensation $13.2 million
2008 Compensation $3,241,042
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options $744,232,068---WTF?!?!?!?
2009 Options Exercise $127,001,281
Edward Hanway CIGNA CEO
Five-Year Compensation, as of April 30, 2008
$120.51 million
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options
$28,881,000
Michael McCallister Humana CEO
2007 Compensation $10.3 million
2008 Compensation $1,017,308
Five-Year Compensation Total $15.1 million
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options $60,865,194
2006 Options Exercise $22,294,710
Ronald A. Williams Aetna CEO
2007 Compensation $23 million
2008 Compensation $24,300,112
Total Value of Unexercised Options $194,496,797
Allen Wise Coventry CEO
2004 Compensation $13,052,799
2006 Sale of Stock $14,458,251
2006 Options Exercised $2,895,000
2005 Sale of Stock $46,410,695
2005 Options Exercised $6,709,564
2004 Sale of Stock $12,826,756
2004 Options Exercised $4,798,000
Angela Braly WellPoint CEO
2007 Compensation $9,094,271
2008 Compensation $9,844,212
2006 Sale of Stock $4,858,585
2006 Options Excerise $4,566,124
(Then add in the pay and perks for all of the junior and senior executive parasites plus stockholder dividends)
Now, I'll ask YOU a question: how is that right? Those people have to be absolute sociopaths to think that they desreve what they're getting paid.
It looks like a ponzi scheme to me. The health care system is riddled with parasites.
Under a government run single-payer system those expenses are eliminated thus freeing up FOUR HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130
XBL: GratuitousFREEK
ManusJustus said:
The United States healthcare system is not as efficient as the healthcare systems of other developed countries. For instance, the United Kingdom pays three times less for healthcare than the United States, and there is no way America's private system could bring costs down that low while still covering the entire population. Before you say anything, because I know you will, the United Kingdom has private hospitals and, even if you were to argue that their public hospitals are slow, they could build three times as many hospitals and hire three times as many doctors and blow the United States out of the water if they wanted to waste that much money. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita |
We are not talking about the UK, we are talking about the US. The US government is not as efficient as the UK. Plus size does matter. The larger you get, the less efficient you are.
Tell me one thing the US government is more efficient on then the private sector?
In the US, 20% of all the insured is covered under a government plan. They pay as much to insure them, as the private sector pays to insure the other 80%. Yes, the 20% they cover are higher cost, but most of those 20% have private insurance as well.
I have said it before, and I will say it again.
The best healthcare in the world, without question, is the US... if you can afford it. The problem is not a healthcare problem, it's a money problem.
Why would anyone in there right mind look to Government to solve a money problem? If I had to think of the least fiscal responsible organization in the entire world, it would be the US Congress. 7th graders from any country could do a better job.
No its a healthcare system problem. Its not a problem with the actual healthcare - its a problem with the overall distribution and cost of that healthcare.
The US healthcare system is highly inefficient, and does not reach a significant portion of the population. As such it falls short of most other western nations by most measures in which healthcare is measured.
Also while I agree the US government has always seemed to me to be a bit of a disaster I don't see how they could possibly run a less efficient healthcare system than the private sector in the USA. It would take some doing.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
