That's funny.

 

Toilets aren't the only thing he plunges.

 

PERFECT ! LMAO

 

This is a ridiculous comparison. Highways and healthcare are a bit different from one another. What about food distribution, clothing, housing, should all of these be provided by and run by the federal government??

Our state and local governments run these pieces of our infrastructure, not the feds. In a market driven world all roads and infrastructure ARE owned by the people collectively through a system of local and state governments.

This was tried for decades and it failed everywhere it was attempted.

 

Ironically, roads WERE constructed primarily by private entities for most of U.S. history, and for the most part, they were toll roads. Eventually, that system became manifestly impractical, as has our health care system. Responsibility for roads was eventually taken over by the states, with funding provided in part by the federal government through the gas tax.

A further irony is that the roads were "socialized" based in part on a national defense argument. It was argued after World War II that we needed a high-quality road system to provide mobility to military hardware and personnel. Maybe someone will start arguing that a healthy population is essential to our national defense...and then we'll get universal health care.

 

You neglect the fact that the federal government collects gas taxes and then returns the funds to the states (disproportionately) for road construction and maintenance. The federal government also sets standards for road construction, signage, lane width, etc., etc., etc.

It's not a ridiculous comparison at all, except in the sense that it fails to support your point of view, apparently.

 

Do you really think that this is an appropriate comparison??

Roads were common right of ways, usually along property lines, they were considered to be part of the public domain. However they were not maintained as traffic grew heavier, both in volume and in vehicle weight. To rectify the problem private property owners began to build improved roads, bridges and ferrys to handle the load, a toll was extracted for those using the convienence.

Today the major highways are constructed by selling bonds, road use taxes and licence fees go towards paying the bondholders. Rather similar isn't it.

The maintenance of the highway infrastructure is mainly the job of the state and local governments, not the federal. The federal government provides funding for the construction of interstate highway, this was the vision of DDE in establishing the Interstate system. One of his stated goals was to develop a system to move military personnel and hardware across the country quickly.

Show me the connection to healthcare.

 

As you have already admitted more then a few times now there are not clinics in many communities. But if there were "free clinics" available to almost everyone it would solve some of the problems we have now.

They could provide screening, catching health problems before they become critical thus saving a great deal of money and reducing the problems at emergency rooms. They could provide back care and medications. They could be readily available to everyone.

There's only two problems. One is the free clinics we have now are notoriously under staffed and under equipped, many barely more then first aid stations. And of course there are no profits in free clinics. That's why there are so few of them.

So yes the only answer is to create them through government funds and incentives.

Good. I just wanted to confirm that you were in favor of government providing and funding these new clinics because we would need thousands of them. But they would save money in the long run.

I'm not talking about capacity. Obviously we need more doctors and other health care professionals. I'm talking about doctors who refuse to see Medicaid and Medicare patients, because they charge higher fees then the government is willing to pay.

This is especially acute when it comes to specialists who uninsured as well as Medicaid and Medicare patients need to be referred to.

And we've already established that you are one of the "insiders" as Krugman described them. So it seems contradictory to me for you to agree that all Americans should have a right to healthcare and then also maintain you must retain your protected status.

That would be nice if it was but I'm pretty sure it isn't because the only real solution is Single Payer Insurance paid for and administered by the federal government and cutting out the waste of private insurance companies siphoning off money need for actual medical services. Is that what you are agreeing too? If it is then yes we are in agreement.

No it will result in lots of howling that just sounds like chaos because it would be cutting into profits and cutting out the health insurance industry. But as Krugman points out this allows us to negotiate on a national basis thus giving us the most leverage possible. I thought you were a great believer in this market approach.

I don't think that's the complaint of the people on Medicare. That's the complaint of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies who say this is cutting into their PROFITS.

Why? There's no real need for this under a Single Payer Plan administered by the government. Under this plan the cost of drugs, equipment, supplies ect. will be negotiated in advance thus equalizing the largest portion of the costs. And lower costs in the process. That's what Krugman points to as one of the biggest advantages. And I would point out the system works in places like the UK, France and Japan better then our system works here.

 

Sorry, but I have addressed the federal highway funds issue. The federal standards apply to interstate highways, not state and local roads. All of the federal standards that you have mentioned apply only to interstates.

No you're comparing apples to oranges. If you want I'd be happy to discuss the highway system and interstate transportation. But can we do in an appropriate thread?

 

Since you once again have resorted to an attempt to state your opinion as fact, there is no point in discussing the issues. I asked you to simply sstate yes or no and then post a brief concise statement. You are seemingly incapable of doing this.

You are pathetic.

The history is that healthcare, from it's inception to recent times, was delivered primarily by individuals in private practice. Payment for services were the responsibilty of the recipient, either through direct payment or third party payers.

Hospitals and supporting clinics were established by individual private investment, universities or charitable organization (primarily religious). Municipalities also established hospitals, in certain instances, supported by state and local taxes. But they are in the extreme minority.

You are trying to compare a part of the infrastructure that has been part of the public domain for over a century, with a healthcare system that has been in existance as primarily a private enterprize for also over a century.

Apples and oranges, you should be ashamed to attempt this.

 

Tenguy, you put up a post specifically giving YOUR OPINION and then specifically asking for mine. And that was because I posted facts and you couldn't refute them so you tried this tactic and since it does not agree with yours now I'm the one that is incapable.

This is a complex issue that does not lend itself to simple yes or no answers or simple solutions for simple minds.

Already back to insulting. That didn't last long now did it?

Nope, not at all. Just as the demand for roads and bridges became to great to be handled by the private for profit sector, so has health care now reached that point. Pretty simple but yet accurate comparison really.

 

Guess the old saying that "opinions are like assholes" applies here, "everybody has one."


Two completely different set of evolution factors. You are demeaning yourself.

 

Here's another view of the problem with health insurance companies.

Edwards Puts Personal Touch on Health Care Crisis



ABC News' David Muir Reports: The family of teenager Nataline Sarkisyan, who died while waiting for a liver transplant, stood beside John Edwards at a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire today urging voters to elect Edwards.
On the stump, Edwards has repeatedly talked about the Sarkisyan family's fight with Cigna Healthcare to get the insurance company to cover the transplant. Cigna initially denied coverage for the procedure, but after protests and pleas from nurses and doctors the company reversed its decision. The 17-year-old Sarkisyan died before she could get the transplant.
"My heart is a hole. This isn't just about Nataline; it's about all of us," Hilda Sarkisyan, Nataline's mother said. "We fought them, but what about the families who don't have a voice?"
Fighting back tears, Sarkisyan's brother Bedig said he promised his dying sister everyone would know her story and thanked Edwards for helping in the fight against insurance companies.
"This is not right. Not in America," Sarkisyan's father Grigort said.
The crowd erupted into applause giving the family a standing ovation.


*not_secure_link*blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/edwards-puts-pe.html

 

Since we have already conceded the point that all citizens in the US should have health coverage, what is the point of this post, other than to beat a horse that has already won the race??

Is this another liberal scare tactic?

 

While none of the health care proposals I've heard goes to the extent that Paul Krugman's does which is the only real long term solution to the problem this is what might be a good indication of what we'll see as an initial step once Barack Obama becomes President. Its a column by Tom Daschele who Obama has named Secretary of Health and Human Services. He does a good job of explaining some of the problems and offers at least one solution.

Read Tom Daschle's post from March 3, 2008, on solutions to America's health care crisis, below:
Pressure has mounted to fix our broken health-care system. Costs are climbing and coverage crumbling. Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Republicans to a lesser degree, have put forward plans for solving this crisis. Yet, health-care policy remains complicated, personal, and encrusted with special interests. Support and solid plans alone will not yield success.
There are three fundamental problems plaguing our health-care system today: skyrocketing costs, lack of access, and disparity of quality care.
Today, 47 million Americans lack health-care coverage. Just as troubling is the fact that medical bills have become the leading cause of bankruptcies in the United States. It is projected that the U.S. will spend nearly $2.4 trillion on health care this year. That is almost $7,500 per person. Premiums have increased [PDF] nearly 98% since 2000. Most troubling is that this increase is nearly four times faster than the growth of wages during the same period.
For individuals that do have health care coverage, the quality of health care they receive is often inadequate. For instance, the U.S. lags behind other industrialized countries in basic health measures such as life expectancy and infant mortality. Moreover, we have less same-day access to primary-care physicians as individuals in other countries. And, it is estimated that 98,000 Americans die annually from medical errors, caused by bad physician handwriting, incomplete charts, or other "low-tech" problems.
The time is now for us to take this challenge head-on. What we need is a change in approach. In my book, Critical: What We Can Do About the American Health-Care Crisis, I have proposed a Federal Health Board that would be a foundation from which we could address all three problems. In many ways, the Federal Health Board would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board for the banking industry. Just as the Federal Reserve ensures certain standards, transparency and performance for our banking industry, the Fed Health would ensure harmonization across public programs of health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency. Ultimately, the Fed Health would offer a public framework within which a private health-care system could operate more effectively and efficiently.
The Fed Health could help reduce administrative costs. Roughly 30 cents of every dollar in health care is spent on administration rather than health benefits. Our administrative costs, on a per capita basis, are seven times higher than that of our peer nations. Each state has their own system for Medicaid and insurance regulation. We have different health-care systems for active duty military members versus veterans. And private insurers spend billions trying to enroll the healthy and avoid the sick. A Federal Health Board that sets evidence-based standards for benefits and quality for federal programs and insurance will lower this complexity and thus costs.
The Fed Health could also promote quality and save money by making the health-care system more transparent. Today, the lack of transparency in the system makes it virtually impossible for people to grasp what they are paying for and who provides them with the best care. This shroud of secrecy allows for wildly different prices for similar quality care. For example, a Pennsylvania report on heart surgery found hospitals with similar outcomes charge from $20,000 to $100,000. The Board, by ensuring transparency, would increase competition based on price and quality rather than cream skimming and cost sharing.
Additionally, the Fed Health could set standards for quality and coverage, promoting best practices and identifying the trade-offs on services. It would use information on the comparative clinical and cost effectiveness of different treatment options to set standards for Federal programs. The Congressional Budget Office recently credited this idea with the potential to produce substantial system-wide savings.
But the Federal Health Board is just one element of comprehensive reform that would drive down the cost of the system. Cost shifting, preventable illness, and uncontrolled chronic disease add to our health care costs - and will be reduced by insuring all Americans.
The decisions made by the Federal Health Board would be tough. But this model undoubtedly beats the alternative. Imagine what would happen if Congress revoked the Federal Reserve's power to set interest rates and decided to legislate new interests rates instead. It would be a disaster - no less so than the results of mismanagement of our health-care system.
The time has come for creative ideas and workable solutions to solving our health-care crisis. I submit that the creation of a Fed Health Board would be a bold step in the right direction.

 

Most of Daschles points are also points of agreement with plans from the other side of the aisle, universal insurance coverage would indeed reduce the cost of healthcare per case, but not in the sum total. By spreading the cost today, we wind up with the situation where those who can pay, paying more. Having all citizens covered would obviously reduce the cost on a per case basis, it might even have an impact on the total, due to a reduction in administrative costs.

Most healthcare providers employ one to two administrative people for each person employeed in providing services. Because of the incredible variation between health insurance claim forms, sophisticated computer programs and trained personnel are required just to obtain approvals and submit claims for payment.

Today we use an increasing number of HMO's with mixed results, the medicare system is actually a huge HMO. Primary care physicians must be consulted before a patient can obtain non-emergency care from another doctor or specialist. While this does help in managing the actual care, it complicates things at both the doctors office and the specialists office. This further slows the care giving process and increases the paper load. With all cictizens covered by insurance, the claim part would be mre streamlined, but the referral part will still exist.

So when someone like Dacshel comes up with a plan like this, we might want to look "under the hood" and not just at the shiny chrome. The 30% administrative figure is due to a large part by existing federal programs.

His statement highlighted in red is my greaest concern. You can't effectively legislate pricing, Carter learned this, as did a few administrations before him.

 

All you're doing here tenguy is making an excellent case for the savings that can be made by eliminating private for profit health care insurance and converting to a single payer government sponsored approach to paying for health care.

PS Carter tried to regulate a commodity that was completely out of our control and easily subjected to corruption and fraud which was oil. Health care on the other hand is something that is entirely within our control and can easily and effectively regulated.

 

Okay, we'll wait a bit and see what the new administration brings to the table. Will it be a plan to provide insurance funding to individuals, a revamp of the insurance industry or a total revamp of the healthcare system.

No one in here knows.

However, my ideas outlined earlier and dismissed by you are almost exactly what Obama proposed during the campaign.

 

I think we will see exactly what Paul Krugman said would realistically have to happen in his essay.

We'll see some small and largely ineffective steps to solve the problem that will evolve into government sponsored single payer insurance and eventually full fledged socialized medicine as the old failed ideologies gradually give way to the solutions that will actually work to provide health care to all Americans.

As he points out that is regrettable and counter productive when it comes to something as important as health care but most likely necessary due to the political and ideological realities.