Question about healthcare repealFollow

Let me start with an admission: I have no idea how to fix the health care situation in this country.

That being said, health care costs are high for three reasons, and in my opinion only three reasons.

1. Litigious patients.

It has become unacceptable to make a mistake in our society. Even things that aren't mistakes, but unfortunate outcomes of soundly reasoned decisions, are now litigated. Insurance costs are therefore through the roof for both practitioners and facilities.

2. Government regulations.

Onerous laws and regulations on coverages that can, must or should be offered in any given state are burdensome to the average consumer in order to appease a voting block.

3. "Free Money" syndrome (not a technical diagnosis, but something I like the sound of)

Tuition at university is so expensive these days because there is free money to be had. Real estate prices became inflated because there was free (or nearly...) money to be had. Medicine is so expensive these days because there is free money to be had.

First and foremost I believe that the public needs to be more involved with their health care costs. I can't recall the company, but locally there are commercials run for a service that allows you to see the costs of medical services at different venues/providers and choose accordingly. I believe it is run by an insurance company, but I am not sure. I applaud that idea. It brings the model of that service in to a more competitive place. Lasik (sp?)_costs used to be exorbitant. Now providers have price wars to entice customers to their centers. Why isn't medicine in general done along the same lines? Better yet, why are we content to allow the next 20 years of someone's life (or their life) to be decided by the best lawyer that person can afford, but insist that every person is entitled, by right, to the best health care available?

I think we have a fundamental problem with perspective and a pliant government willing to pander for votes. Given my conservative/libertarian leanings I don't believe it is in the government's purview to ensure the outcome for the populace. I believe in charity, kindness & caring for your fellow man, I just believe it should come at your discretion and not the government's. For me, the entire bill is on the table, as I believe it is, in its entirety, an over-reach by a government too interested in being all things to all most people.

I know this missive likely missed answering your question, but it's likely as thoughtful as I am willing to get about the problem and any responses I have in this thread from here on out are likely to get progressively less helpful. There are holes in my philosophy. There are holes in the current law. There are always going to be unfortunate circumstances and really sad stories to trot out in defense of whatever position a person wants to argue. Up front I said I have no idea how to fix health care, and that's pretty much the truth.

Have you ever used the services of a Public Defender? Think Chris Rock in Lethal Weapon 4: "If you can't afford an attorney, we'll provide you with the dumbest f'ucking lawyer on earth."

Federal law requires basic treatment for any patient, regardless of ability to pay. Why do we need nationalized health care?

This, pretty much.
Also, I thought that the basic treatment came down to emergency rooms only?

My response was a specific answer to your question asking why we'd need national health care if federal law requires treating you.

Not much to lose then, huh?

You on the rag or something this morning? You asked a question. It was answered. Relying on unpaid emergency room visits to plug up the hole in the health care system for the uninsured is a terrible plan. It clogs emergency rooms with non-emergency patients, stiffs the physicians who tend to them, results in piles of administrative paperwork as the hospital tried to chase unpaid bills, ruins the credit of the guy was was unfortunate enough to get ill or hurt in the first place and raises the cost of medical care all around.

Personally, I think the "answer" is some sort of plan to ensure that the physicians are paid and that the patients aren't required to use emergency services for non-critical events (or forced to wait until they become critical before seeking treatment, again adding to the costs). It's either that or just deny emergency care based on ability to pay and that's not the direction I want to head in.

Pretty much.

Ok.

Moe, I've got a question for you then: Do you think that this is sufficient basic healthcare, do you think that this is a good arrangement (and if not, what is) and why?

It pains me to write this, but I do think this would help. It just won't fix it.

Pretty much. With business policies, there's a little more leeway (at least 51% of the employees have to live in the state where the policy is written).

At least, that's how business policies in TN work. I haven't really had much interaction with any other states insurance policies.

ETA: That is why you'll see BlueCross BlueShield of <insert state here> instead of just BlueCross BlueShield.

Edited, Nov 4th 2010 11:01am by Belkira

Basic Premise:


Question 1) Do I think this is sufficient basic health care?
I do not.
Question 2) Do I think that this is a good arrangement?
I do not.
Question 3) If no to question 2, what would be?
I have no idea.

As I stated originally, I haven't got the solution.

Here's what I do believe though:
I believe it is outside the mandate of the federal government to provide basic health care for the population. I believe that attempts to do so are an over-reach. Yes, I would eliminate medicare. Yes, I would eliminate medicaid. Yes, I would eliminate supplemental programs like SCHIP.

I believe that tax rates on individual income nearing 40% and on corporate income that can exceed 50% are unconscionable. I believe that left with a greater percentage of their earnings people and corporations would find a way to meet the majority of the needs of the community. It is a simple best interests argument. It is in the best interests of the community (of which corporations are a part) to ensure that minimum levels are met. Does that preclude states & cities from enacting their own local plans? No. That is their right. If an individual did not like the clmate in their local community they would be free to find one more to their liking. It is the basis for a republic of sovereign states. As long as, in this country, there was no barrier put up to prevent that free movement or to prevent one state or municipality from changing its laws to meet the will of the people there would be no issue.

Health Care is not a right. It is a service. We are not guaranteed long life, or healthy life. We are endowed with a right to life. The quality of that life is ours to determine.

Getting back to the OP, I would put money down saying that the HCR law won't be significantly changed in the next two years. Bu which I mean the basic tenets of it will remain including the mandate. Some stuff like the 1099 restriction will be tinkered with but that's about it. It won't be defunded either despite the threats; the law is tied into things such as Medicare in a way that trying to block its funding will have plenty of unintended consequences even if you ignore the whole presidential veto thing.

I believe that the House will vote to repeal, and pass that bill. I believe it is DOA in the Senate and were it not that it would be vetoed by the President. I believe that the House will vote to de-fund the legislation and face similar results. I believe that the GOP will use that to campaign on Democrats still acting outside the will of the people in 2012 and they will do so successfully.