Quote:
Originally Posted by Baasinator
Let's pretend that we don't already know that our government is not capable of efficiently managing and improving a system as complex as American healthcare. Let's just look at recent history. As far as government handouts go, "Cash For Clunkers" is about as simple as a program can be, right? And yet the government has proven unable to implement even this! And after failing to run the program in an acceptable manner, they decided to expand it!
Seriously? We want to hand over the healthcare system to them? They can't handle a few hundred thousand transactions that essentially contain three or four inputs and one output, but we think they can manage an industry with millions of participants and millions of variables? A business that literally deals in life and death?
Some car dealers have stopped participating in the program because they are out of cash and they don't know when or if they'll be repaid by the government. No big deal -- nobody is dying over it -- but people who might like to participate in the program are being denied the opportunity because the government cannot manage it properly. Now imagine we're talking about hospitals instead of car dealerships.
When Obama is off-teleprompter, he has shown that he doesn't understand the principles or the details of this plan he is trying to sell us. Why would we listen to these people and just hope they might get it right this time, especially when so much is on the line?
My question is this: why is most of Washington hell-bent on reforming and destroying a system that essentially works, instead of taking some simple common-sense measures to address problems that do exist with the current system? For example, why can't we start with John Mackey's ideas and go from there?
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com
** Yes, I know the evil Journal edited his piece (as they do with every op-ed). I didn't see any big differences, but his original piece is on his blog if you care:
The CEO’s Blog |
In Obamas defense, being asked about a very specific piece of a very large document and have him know it off the top of his head is a little unreasonable, he didn't even ignore the question, just needed a little time to consult before answering it.
Most of these town hall meetings are nothing but slander attacks by pissed off republicans that are mad they lost the presidency, house, and senate.
Back on topic, that link you posted had some very good ideas, some of them extremely optimistic, like expecting that people will all become health nuts.
It would more likely that everyone in the world would just get along with each other.
Or insurance companies letting go of their stacked monopoly and stop dropping insured people when they get sick, or expecting people to give to a sick charity when they already pay for medicare out of their checks.
Not to mention that there is no plan to get the drug companies to let go of the death grip they have everyone's balls in with their monopoly locked system pushing highly inflated prices.
The government is the only entity that can put competition in this market, and make the insurance companies play fair, for better or worse, and the insurance companies are subsidized by the government already, the only thing is they decide what to do with that tax payer money, could be to help you out, or it could mean a company Lear jet and Cuban cigars...
And this "overburden with rules and regulations" angle is laughable, because these rules and regulations that jack up health care prices are what keep you from getting a rusty nail in your broken leg instead of a titanium one.
Sure you can save a lot of money by going cheap, a car battery and some salt water instead of a defibrillator, just cutting open someones head to see if there is anything wrong instead of MRI's...
Having any joe blow with a tool shed , a medical Haynes manual,and a bottle of rubbing alcohol be a surgeon.
Those are those pesky rules insurance companies have to play by, and they do cost more, but it isn't a real good alternative to take those rules out.
As far as what is covered is a slippery slope, if John Doe didn't want cancer insurance, and gets cancer and 9999 times out of 10000 can't afford treatment, who do you think will foot the bill?
Tax payers.
Frivolous lawsuits are a fraction of health costs, though notable.
I do agree that someone that gets a scar from heart surgery isn't entitled to millions of dollars for mental stress, but I also agree that if a surgeon leaves a scalpel in someones chest, or amputates the wrong leg, they get compensated at least enough to adjust to their new life path resulting from the negligent actions of the hospital.
Now for the pros...
Medical price transparency, this is something I strongly agree with, with a deductible system people will look online and price check different hospitals, and read patient comments on the hospital they find the best price from, this would be huge price savings, getting the hospitals to compete for your business, and the customer reviews will bring a lot of incentive to improve bedside treatment as well.
Now the doctor you been waiting to see for 3 hours that was just sitting in the nurses lounge watching TV as your infant daughter is dangerously dehydrated from diarrhea(happened to me before) would be boldly displayed with name of doctor and hospital.
No more fudging numbers, no more $600 ace bandages ect. ect.
Not only would this help everyone, it will lower insurance prices when it becomes standard practice to find the best deals pre deductible, and if it carries past the deductible you would have unwittingly have chosen a cheaper hospital for the insurance company as well.
Tax deductible health insurance for individuals is another great idea.
I'm not sure about the medicare reform, it is a broad statement that can swing in a disastrous way for people that are on it, depending heavily on what the reform entails I guess.