Health care Solution- get rid of all republicans.

[lsiberian]

In response to the forest man,

If we eliminate the republicans than we will pass the health care bill thus ending the controversy. :p

And while we are at it we should expel the Canadians. They already have healthcare in their own country after all. :D

[rnatalli]

I'll go along with this so long as we get rid of the democrats as well.

[jamie2112]

Lets get rid of BOTH lame duck parties and find a new (UP TO DATE) party..these prehistoric ideals that both parties have suck.

[Alex2507]

find a new (UP TO DATE) party..

http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae227/Alex2507Audio/Goofy%20Stuff/Toga-Party-007.jpg

[jamie2112]

http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae227/Alex2507Audio/Goofy%20Stuff/Toga-Party-007.jpg

Looks like a start to me........:D

[JerryLove]

Sadly "vote for Zod" is down.

[lsiberian]

I'll go along with this so long as we get rid of the democrats as well.

Sounds good to me. Then we can have communists, socialists, fundamentalists, green, audiophiles, capitalists, and any other party we want. ;)

[aberkowitz]

Sounds good to me. Then we can have communists, socialists, fundamentalists, green, audiophiles, capitalists, and any other party we want. ;)

You realize that if the audiophiles were in charge we would have had at least 5-10 more World Wars that involved nuclear weapons (Beta vs. VHS, Vinyl vs. Tape/CD, LCD vs. Plasma, 720p vs. 1080i, BD vs. HD DVD, SACD vs. DVD Audio, Dolby vs. DTS, etc.). :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Audiophiles should not be allowed to run anything... except of course message boards :D.

[lsiberian]

Seriously though we need a universal health care system. It works in Europe and Canada why not here.

[highfigh]

Seriously though we need a universal health care system. It works in Europe and Canada why not here.

The issue is less "Yes/No, but HOW will it operate and how will it be funded?", for me. To an extent, the argument that someone shouldn't make a killing (no pun intended) by doing something that saves peoples' lives has some validity but if people who are smart and talented enough to be great at it and ingenious enough to develop new ways to save lives aren't paid well, that profession will lose a good number of people. Not that I think most are in it for the money but I have to think that some are, and they achieve this by going into areas that aren't critically needed. Also, corporations owning hospitals need and want to make money for the shareholders and they often lose interest in breaking even for the benefit of the patients. Lose money? Not if they can help it. I'll use Aurora Health Care as an example- they have the SE corner of Wisconsin by the neck and our health care costs are about 25% higher than most of the country. They put the newest and shiniest machines in most of their facilities, even if they won't use them all of the time. Greed is greed, regardless of the business and I wouldn't mind seeing health care operated at a slimmer margin and I'd like to see more emphasis on preventive medicine.

If it's working so well in Canada, why are they looking at ways to privatize some aspects of it?

People need to stop acting like lunch and dinner are an eating competition. Cutting back on quantity and bad food would surely save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars annually.

I think the whole system needs to be restructured- if urgent care isn't needed, an ER should send them somewhere else. I have to think that a huge number of cases could be handled a by a walk-in clinic and if we had more of these, the ER burden would disappear, along with a large part of the financial losses incurred by hospitals.

[Rickster71]

Sounds good to me. Then we can have communists, socialists, fundamentalists, green, audiophiles, capitalists, and any other party we want. ;)

Don't forget the libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/ :)

[highfigh]

Why don't you like librarians?

Oh. Never mind. :D

[Schupo]

Don't forget the libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/ :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[highfigh]

Well exactly. Why can't Americans not only do it, but do it better than the rest of us? Isn't that what you Yanks usually do ?:)

We used to but nobody wants to pay for quality anymore, only quantity. With all of the BS in Washington, we sure got our money's worth.

[Nemo128]

Well exactly. Why can't Americans not only do it, but do it better than the rest of us? Isn't that what you Yanks usually do ?:)

That's our beliefs out loud. Fact is, the general citizen cares about themselves first and/or only. Every political debate we see here is evidence of that, from those wanting GM and Chrysler to just die since they aren't one of the people employed there or the people wanting a universal healthcare system where the money of hardworking people will be used to care for the lazy.

We used to but nobody wants to pay for quality anymore, only quantity.

Bull. People just don't want to pay for what doesn't directly benefit them. I bet some people here don't want their tax dollars going into public education because they send their kids to private school, as one example. This culture of excess, greed, and selfishness is almost enough to make me want to leave, but I recognize that the alternatives are no better.

That, however, is the core issue. The widespread belief that we could be so much worse off means we must be just fine. People focus on turning into this or that, becoming like this country or that continent, rather than saying THIS HERE is a problem and WE need to come up with our OWN solution to OUR very real problems. One's personal opinion of the state of our nation compared to the state of other nations shouldn't be such a predominant concern.

[highfigh]

That, however, is the core issue. The widespread belief that we could be so much worse off means we must be just fine. People focus on turning into this or that, becoming like this country or that continent, rather than saying THIS HERE is a problem and WE need to come up with our OWN solution to OUR very real problems. One's personal opinion of the state of our nation compared to the state of other nations shouldn't be such a predominant concern.

Everyone who works legally (and some who are illegal) pay FICA. That helps other people. I'm not sure I'll see any of it but it still helps others.

Helping others is great but paying more for health care, for people who sit in front of the TV and eat everything in sight, smoke when they know it kills, drink/drug like it's the '60s and do everything but put a gun in their mouth & pull the trigger in their effort to kill themselves isn't fair to those who end up forking over the cash.

I don't have kids but my property tax bill increases every year mainly because of the public school system which, BTW, is run so badly that the Governor just presented a bill to have the MKE Mayor take over its control. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done this if MKE had a Republican Mayor, but that hasn't happened since the '40s, and that one was a Democrat/Republican "hybrid". The school budget is closing in on $2B/year and they rank as one of the worst in the country. I don't like how the money is wasted- they spent $26K on iPods for students to use during study hall. They said it was to improve their self-esteem. Why can't good grades provide that? Why can't an improved graduation rate provide that?The school board votes for their own raises and budget increases, without interacting with anyone. Two years ago, they increased it by 9.2% (the maximum allowed) and sank millions into facilities upgrades. At this time, the school system has 16 schools that are sitting idle, some of which were updated under that budget increase. I can only hope they come up with a better alternative to the way it is now and there's no way anyone should try to stop public education- EVERYONE should be well educated, not just those who can go to a private school. The worst thing for a nation is to have a large number of people who don't know what they need to get along in daily life but with a high dropout rate because of drug use, gang activity and teenage pregnancy, those kids probably won't get very far.

It's not only inner city kids who drop out, either. I had a kid working for me in the late '90s and he came in early one day to proudly announce that he was available for full-time work. I asked why and he said he had quit school because there was nothing for him there. I took him into the office and gave him a bit of a clue about why that's a bad idea and he came in the next week to tell me that he was going for his GED. He had to go for that instead of talking with his school because, being a major hothead, he gave them an earful when he left, so they basically asked that he not come back if he reconsidered his decision. He came from a suburb and a fairly high income family.

That belief about "It's not so bad" is just complacency and that is a problem. I agree completely about excess, selfishness, greed and have had that opinion for a long time. Too many think that they can get rich quickly, but it's their thinking that money will take care of their problems that gets them into trouble. A show on TV recently dealt with the "Lottery Curse", where a high majority of winners' lives go down the drain at a very rapid rate after coming into a large amount of money, some tragically. Many prefer to absorb themselves in the problems of others, rather than deal with their own. Look at what's on TV- Jon & Kate, the Octomom (who apparently has the hots for Jon), Jerry Springer, Cops, daytime talk shows and all of the so-called "Reality Shows". It's just avoidance.

As the saying goes, "Discontent is the first step toward progress". I agree unless it's discontent, for the sake of it. I think people need to take a hard look at themselves and define what their skills are, what needs improvement and realistically determine what they can/can't achieve in their life. There's no point in aspiring to what isn't possible but everyone can use a little self-improvement. However, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's futile.

We all have work to do and defining what the issues are is job #1. The problem now is that with two diametrically opposed parties, there's no agreement and if they can't agree on what needs fixing, it's impossible to come up with a good plan.

[JerryLove]

We all have work to do and defining what the issues are is job #1. The problem now is that with two diametrically opposed parties, there's no agreement and if they can't agree on what needs fixing, it's impossible to come up with a good plan. I agree, though it's not just opposed ideologies. Al Frankin's recent "don't give government bids to companies that attempt to prevent their employees from suing for the company covering up a gang-rape" bill got 3/4ths of Senate republicans voting against it.

There are only two equally distasteful options: Either they are so in the pocket of Haliburton that they will vote to support gang-rape coverups, or they voted against it because a democrat submitted it.

Certainly there's no ideological support.

[highfigh]

I agree, though it's not just opposed ideologies. Al Frankin's recent "don't give government bids to companies that attempt to prevent their employees from suing for the company covering up a gang-rape" bill got 3/4ths of Senate republicans voting against it.

There are only two equally distasteful options: Either they are so in the pocket of Haliburton that they will vote to support gang-rape coverups, or they voted against it because a democrat submitted it.

Certainly there's no ideological support.

So, how do we get them to see that they're clearly not doing the job we need them to? We can vote, but in my case, I'm in a state that is very blue collar, low pay jobs and most of the Conservatives live outside of the City. Some do, but they're a small minority and their chance of getting a different party in as Mayor are nil. I'm in a suburb, but still in MKE County, which means I'm in the same position- who is elected almost never matches my vote.

On a good note, the current Governor has dome a terrible job and has announced that he won't run again. Many of us hope we get a fiscally sensible replacement.

[JerryLove]

So, how do we get them to see that they're clearly not doing the job we need them to? That's not the question. The question is "how do you get them to care"

We can vote, but in my case, I'm in a state that is very blue collar, low pay jobs and most of the Conservatives live outside of the City. Some do, but they're a small minority and their chance of getting a different party in as Mayor are nil. I'm in a suburb, but still in MKE County, which means I'm in the same position- who is elected almost never matches my vote. The wonders of democracy I fear. But the truth is the vote follows the money. That's why more than 90% of all incumbants get re-elected.

You want a real answer? Revolution. Replace congress with a much smaller body. Have congress hire and fire (think bord of directors) agency heads who make real policy / spending. Make terms 3 years and don't allow consecutive terms (also, make taking money from private interests while in office, and campaigning while in office, treason).

[NicolasKL]

The issue is less "Yes/No, but HOW will it operate and how will it be funded?", for me. To an extent, the argument that someone shouldn't make a killing (no pun intended) by doing something that saves peoples' lives has some validity but if people who are smart and talented enough to be great at it and ingenious enough to develop new ways to save lives aren't paid well, that profession will lose a good number of people.


I don't think health insurance companies are saving anyone's lives.

[Jed M]

I don't think health insurance companies are saving anyone's lives.
Correct. Health Insurance companies only serve as modern day death panels. Its hospitals, doctors and pharma that save lives. Health insurance companies really serve no purpose in the "life saving" business. In fact, their purpose is for the exact opposite. They literally decide who gets "saved" and who doesn't.

[highfigh]

I don't think health insurance companies are saving anyone's lives.

Not directly, but they pay for the care received and if someone has no hope of being covered for some treatments, they won't try to get them. The insurance companies don't cover pre-existing conditions and of someone has no insurance but loses their coverage/reaches their lifetime maximum and needs treatment for a disease that returns, they're basically screwed.

Talk to a doctor and ask if insurance companies pay the amount on the bill. They don't- they negotiate a much lower price and if it's not possible for some doctors to maintain a certain lifestyle, they'll leave the profession. Don't kid yourself- they're not all in it to save lives or help people.

[Jed M]

Not directly, but they pay for the care received
Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

[highfigh]

"That's not the question. The question is "how do you get them to care""

That's an unteresting question, in light of how politicians campaign. They talk about "being there" for us and doing things that will benefit their district, state, county, nation, etc but the people who vote for them go for it hook, line and sinker. I'd like to see how many people vote based on the issues vs party affiliation/"He's one of us", etc.

"You want a real answer? Revolution. Replace congress with a much smaller body. Have congress hire and fire (think bord of directors) agency heads who make real policy / spending. Make terms 3 years and don't allow consecutive terms (also, make taking money from private interests while in office, and campaigning while in office, treason)."

I like this but the "no consecutive terms" part may be a problem. Or not. As it is now, it takes a certain amount of time to learn how the existing system works and if they want to get things done, it may take the better part of one term to gain enough support from other members of Congress to do anything meaningful. The "Or not" part applies to another question- "So we really want them to learn how it works the way it is?". I think the way it is now needs to end. The part you wrote parenthetically is something I have thought for a long time. If they're out campaigning for a different position, they can't possible give much effort to the one they were elected to, so they shouldn't be paid, at the very least. At most, they should be replaced. If this is done in the private sector, it wouldn't be tolerated by any employer I know. It would mean Obama wouldn't have finished his term in the Senate, either. He was barely there for two years when he began his campaign.

[highfigh]

Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

Insurance is a numbers game. The odds of a person with a certain lifestyle has more chance of coming down with certain illnesses and less of others. Someone working in a dangerous profession is more likely to be injured or killed than someone who sits at a desk. They have calculated these risks to a fine degree and based on this, they charge us for coverage. That's why they ask the questions they do on their applications. What they collect is basically a slush fund and they know that they'll never have to pay it all out at one time, so they take the excess and invest it- no point in letting it sit there and not make money for them, right? For this, our rates increased on several occasions because they made bad investments. How the F is that our fault and why should we pay for it? On top of that, they negotiate lower payments to hospitals and doctors, deny claims and build new offices/headquarters.

Non-profits spend anything left over at the end of the year and many times, the heads get this as bonuses. I fail to see how that helps anyone, other than the ones getting the bonuses.

[highfigh]

Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

I mean the insurance companies use the premiums they collect to pay for the treatment we receive but not necessarily at full price.

[Nemo128]

People should be more concerned with getting good health care and wellness options rather than simply health insurance. Preventive medicine and care is far more effective and important.

highfigh, always meant to tell you, I find your sig HIGHLY amusing. I smirk cynically every time I read it.

[JerryLove]

I like this but the "no consecutive terms" part may be a problem. Or not. As it is now, it takes a certain amount of time to learn how the existing system works and if they want to get things done, it may take the better part of one term to gain enough support from other members of Congress to do anything meaningful. The "Or not" part applies to another question- "So we really want them to learn how it works the way it is?". I think the way it is now needs to end. The part you wrote parenthetically is something I have thought for a long time. If they're out campaigning for a different position, they can't possible give much effort to the one they were elected to, so they shouldn't be paid, at the very least. At most, they should be replaced. If this is done in the private sector, it wouldn't be tolerated by any employer I know. It would mean Obama wouldn't have finished his term in the Senate, either. He was barely there for two years when he began his campaign. As it is now: Congress works something like 120 days a year, if they show up, and if they are not campaigning.

I suggest 3-year terms with an election every year for 1/3rd of congress. That means a politician who wins when he runs has 3 years in, 1 year running, and 3 years in again.

It also means that, each year, there's a 1/3rd change-over (even if these people come back).

I think it helps reduce "incumbent always gets elected", helps break up status quo, and eliminates campaigning in office (treason), while not resulting in "nothing but the inexperienced and out-of-touch"... at least not to a greater degree than now.

[NicolasKL]

Not directly, but they pay for the care received

They don't even do that. The people paying the premiums pay for the care received. All health insurance companies do is disburse the funds.

Talk to a doctor and ask if insurance companies pay the amount on the bill. They don't- they negotiate a much lower price

Mine doesn't. They pay the max they think it should cost and then the doctor bills ME for the difference.

[NicolasKL]

Non-profits spend anything left over at the end of the year and many times, the heads get this as bonuses. I fail to see how that helps anyone, other than the ones getting the bonuses.

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

[Nemo128]

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

NJ Manufacturers insurance does exactly that. They pay dividends to all policy holders at the end of the year. It's like a partial refund of your premium. They do this as a non-profit insurance company, and they're very successful in NJ. They offer without exception in my experience the lowest insurance premiums of any NJ auto insurance provider.

I guess being an insurance company that isn't only concerned with raping the consumer hand over fist isn't so bad! :D

[markw]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Why not compare the insurance you buy from Best Buy for $10.00 when you buy a walkman while you're at it?

After all, it's all insurance, isn't it?

[Nemo128]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Insurance profits from automobiles are higher than medical, and the cost to the consumer for the premiums (at least in NJ) is far higher, but I don't see claims adjusters driving $200k+ cars and owning multiple homes. I know quite a few people in both industries, and the ones in the medical industry are all far better off. The insurance companies are honestly the victims of rape by the pharmaceutical companies, the medical care providers, and the suppliers.

Just ask my fiance, who was doing an architecture project for GSK and saw that they pay upwards of $2500 to move a cabinet. Yes, I said to move a cabinet. Not a medical cabinet. Not a cabinet full of trade secrets. Not even personnel records. A brand new normal empty cabinet that one person can handle moved from one corner to another. And don't let me get started on the scientists who demand that the company spend half a million dollars to rearrange some furniture.

[JerryLove]

There is certainly enough blame to go around: but let's not judge an industry by the employees in it. The fact that the person answering the phone at the insurance company doesn't get paid well doesn't really speak to the industry.

But I agree. The pharm industry is a good culprit... going so far as to issue "coupons" to subvert the co-pay system designed to move you to a $50 generic over a $500 identical name-brand.

All that said: there are fundamental problems that cannot be solved without mandatory insurance. Put simply: the bulk of your expenses are at end-of-life. This means that insurance will become increasingly unaffordable as you age. If we spread the cost to the young in a system where an insurer can refuse old people: then the young will flock to insurers that do just that and we won't solve the problem. If we spread the cost with voulentary insurance: then they young will go uninsured.

But some of those young people will get very sick. If they are uninsured, they will be uninsurable, and so the system will fail. If they were insured, they will likely be dropped. Which one happens more depends on the details of how you setup your non-manditory system.

Only mandated coverage can allow costs to be spread over a community, and only spread costs can make insurance simultaneously available and affordable.

[highfigh]

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

You'd think, but they don't want to give up their bonuses. Then, when they do their budget, they often add for inflation, etc anyway.

[highfigh]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Why not compare the insurance you buy from Best Buy for $10.00 when you buy a walkman while you're at it?

After all, it's all insurance, isn't it?

If it's their own extended warranty, they put in some seed money and use it as a slush fund, which adds to their profit at year end. If they're selling third party warranties, they make good profits on them.

[NicolasKL]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.


Not in a manner that makes a meaningful difference to his point. What about health insurance makes it impossible to be run as a non-profit?

[NicolasKL]

You'd think, but they don't want to give up their bonuses.

Tough ****.

[JerryLove]

Tough ****. For whom? Because it doesn't seem that we are the ones in charge.

[Jed M]

For whom? Because it doesn't seem that we are the ones in charge.That in a nutshell is our problem.

[markw]

Not in a manner that makes a meaningful difference to his point. What about health insurance makes it impossible to be run as a non-profit?Well, since you've obviously got some ideas on how to accomplish this, you're certainly willing to try to talk all the people living off the profits into going non-profit.

...good luck.

For what it's worth, genius, all those "insurances" mentioned in my example are "for profit" companies. d'oh! :D

[Jed M]

The majority of the people working in health care will keep their existing jobs. Its not like going non-profit means we won't have health care. It will basically just effect the people at the very top. How would I handle it? Probably the same way they deny me my one time aciphex prescription for my $600 a month policy or the millions of people whose legitimate claims are denied, with a letter that tells them to essentially go F themselves.

Seriously though, business models change for progress. If we lived under the notion that we can't move forward because somebody will lose their profits we would still be using the pony express and driving horse and buggies. Yeah, it is too bad that the inventor of the 8 track isn't profiting anymore, but the public at large is much better off now. I don't care who runs the non profit, but the health care for profit model just doesn't work. There is not enough money to pay for our health care needs and profits also, and right now our health care is losing at the expense of profits. That is not right and it is bankrupting us.

[Sheep]

Dear everyone in this thread.

FUT YOU!

http://www.villiard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/lol-cats.jpg

SheepStar

[NicolasKL]

Well, since you've obviously got some ideas on how to accomplish this, you're certainly willing to try to talk all the people living off the profits into going non-profit.

...good luck.


Four words: government run health care.

[markw]

Four words: government run health care.You're funny. There's more corruption in Medicare and Medicaid than you can imagine. I'm surprised that one as all-knowing as yourself didn't realize that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html)

[JerryLove]

You're funny. There's more corruption in Medicare and Medicaid than you can imagine. I'm surprised that one as all-knowing as yourself didn't realize that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html) Which medicade and medicare would that be? Humanacare? Aetna's Medicare? United's medicare?

Perhaps, if there's corruption, rather than tossing the baby with the bath-water: we should work to get rid of the corruption.

Or do you believe private industry (AIG, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Bektel, the RIAA, Haliburton, etc) are more well run / honest / philanthropic?

[markw]

You really think the government would be a cheaper and better alternative over the existing health companies? (http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm)

Mine is provided by work and it serves me quite well, thank you.

[JerryLove]

Mine is provided by work and it serves me quite well, thank you. It's interesting that your link starts with the private companies Haliburton and Bektel loosing $25billion.

But apples to apples comparisons might make more sense. Perhaps governmental emplioyee IRS agents vs private subcontractors?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101558116

We could look at California's attempts at deregulating power, or we could look at private-owned prisons, or we could look at how efficiently companies like Haliburton move fuel in Iraq compared to the millitary doing the same.

Though I'd think we would do best to look at the other first-world western democracies. Every one has universal healthcare. Every one has cheaper healthcare than us. Most have better healthcare to boot.

[Nemo128]

It's interesting that your link starts with the private companies Haliburton and Bektel loosing $25billion.

But apples to apples comparisons might make more sense. Perhaps governmental emplioyee IRS agents vs private subcontractors?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101558116

We could look at California's attempts at deregulating power, or we could look at private-owned prisons, or we could look at how efficiently companies like Haliburton move fuel in Iraq compared to the millitary doing the same.

Though I'd think we would do best to look at the other first-world western democracies. Every one has universal healthcare. Every one has cheaper healthcare than us. Most have better healthcare to boot.

Stop it Jerry. Too much logic and rationale in your arguments! You must argue based on personal biased opinions and self-serving skewing of perspectives! Come on, the value "As long as I'm doing well, f*ck everyone else" is Americanism at its best. ;)

[markw]

Stop it Jerry. Come on, the value "As long as I'm doing well, f*ck everyone else" is Americanism at its best. ;)Says the man who proudly says works for the government and wants to run for office in order to preserve his benefits...