Presidents bipartisan fiscal commision

Mott the Hoople said:
It's quite interesting to note, after all the acrimony over health care reform that the bipartisan commision has suggested the following 3 principles of health care reform all other modern nations have adopted.

Universal coverage
A single payer system
Cost controls

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf
Click to expand...

equals same underfunded system other modern nations now face. Just as our Medicare system is underfunded.

You will NEVER get health care costs under control with such a system... unless of course you eliminate what is covered. (ie... some government schmuck is going to tell you what you can and can't have done.) Wait lists then ensue.... fun for all.

You want costs to come under control.... FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM

Shifting HOW it is paid for doesn't fix the problem.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's quite interesting to note, after all the acrimony over health care reform that the bipartisan commision has suggested the following 3 principles of health care reform all other modern nations have adopted.

Universal coverage
A single payer system
Cost controls

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf
Click to expand...

This is precisely what Obama and others have been trying to get across to their opponents. The present HC bill is not the final word. It is a start in the right direction.

Rather than an ambiguous goal such as "We'll make it affordable" or "We'll cut costs" the goal is to ensure everyone has coverage. While those things may very well be involved they are not the goal, in and of themselves. Lots of ideas may cut costs but if everyone is not covered it misses the mark.

A "feel good" post, Mott!
 
apple0154 said:
This is precisely what Obama and others have been trying to get across to their opponents. The present HC bill is not the final word. It is a start in the right direction.

Rather than an ambiguous goal such as "We'll make it affordable" or "We'll cut costs" the goal is to ensure everyone has coverage. While those things may very well be involved they are not the goal, in and of themselves. Lots of ideas may cut costs but if everyone is not covered it misses the mark.

A "feel good" post, Mott!
Click to expand...

please cite the pages that support mott's op...
 
apple0154 said:
This is precisely what Obama and others have been trying to get across to their opponents. The present HC bill is not the final word. It is a start in the right direction.

Rather than an ambiguous goal such as "We'll make it affordable" or "We'll cut costs" the goal is to ensure everyone has coverage. While those things may very well be involved they are not the goal, in and of themselves. Lots of ideas may cut costs but if everyone is not covered it misses the mark.

A "feel good" post, Mott!
Click to expand...

the 'right direction' fails miserably when people cannot AFFORD that coverage in the first place. I realize that most of you liberals can't grasp simple economics, but how does it help to make coverage available to everyone, but fail to reign in costs so premiums triple in price?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Is it Constitutional? :)
Click to expand...
I can't answer that cause this is just a PPT presentation and it doesn't spell out the specifics. However, to use an example, one of the cost controls they mention is limiting what a doctor can charge. No where is it written that a publicly funded hospital was intended to be a low over head practice for physicians. If a Hospital chooses to employ a physician at a hospital, then they can also chose what they wish to pay them (as you can with the employees of your business) or what that physician can charge for their services while employed by said publicly funded Hospital. Physicians would certainly retain their right to refuse to work for them. Considering most hospitals are publicly funded though, they would be between a rock and a hard spot. So yes, to some extent price controls can be constitutional.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't answer that cause this is just a PPT presentation and it doesn't spell out the specifics. However, to use an example, one of the cost controls they mention is limiting what a doctor can charge. No where is it written that a publicly funded hospital was intended to be a low over head practice for physicians. If a Hospital chooses to employ a physician at a hospital, then they can also chose what they wish to pay them (as you can with the employees of your business) or what that physician can charge for their services while employed by said publicly funded Hospital. Physicians would certainly retain their right to refuse to work for them. Considering most hospitals are publicly funded though, they would be between a rock and a hard spot. So yes, to some extent price controls can be constitutional.
Click to expand...

How is the federal government meddling into health care Constitutional?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't answer that cause this is just a PPT presentation and it doesn't spell out the specifics. However, to use an example, one of the cost controls they mention is limiting what a doctor can charge. No where is it written that a publicly funded hospital was intended to be a low over head practice for physicians. If a Hospital chooses to employ a physician at a hospital, then they can also chose what they wish to pay them (as you can with the employees of your business) or what that physician can charge for their services while employed by said publicly funded Hospital. Physicians would certainly retain their right to refuse to work for them. Considering most hospitals are publicly funded though, they would be between a rock and a hard spot. So yes, to some extent price controls can be constitutional.
Click to expand...

Whether price controls are constitutional or not, the real question should be, do they work? In most non-Socialist empires, the free market determines what people make, not the government. When you start talking about cutting doctor's pay, and they'll put up with it because you've put them between a rock and a hard place, you sound like an idiot who doesn't comprehend how free enterprise works. What are you going to do when the majority of doctors decide it's better to spend their lives writing that book they always wanted to do, or go around to college campuses giving lectures, or just tool around in their vintage convertible sports cars, visiting their other doctor buddies at the yacht club? How are you going to provide this free health care for 30 million new patients, without any doctors?

Do you think, if there were a cap on what doctors could make, this would create any incentive for people to become doctors? Why would you bother with years of education and med school, for a career where the government will decide your income for you? I actually think, just the mere notion that some fools are talking such nonsense, is causing thousands of would-be doctors to reconsider their career paths. Not exactly what you'll need to happen if you expect this system to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top