Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what are you talking about?
if you have something you said to me and i didn't respond to, link it
else you're doing exactly what i said you're doing....claiming victory with no further discourse
APP - FINALLY!
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
what are you talking about?
if you have something you said to me and i didn't respond to, link it
else you're doing exactly what i said you're doing....claiming victory with no further discourse
The Donut Hole is the biggest problem and everything else can wait?
The Donut Hole only applies to those who signed on to Part D, fools that they were.
In 1994 the GOP and the industry defeated the bill and then presented us with the Donut Hole and a $500 billion additional Medicare bill as tokens of their appreciation. They then went on to fix nothing. However, their profits and stock prices soared so nothing was lost for the money they spent on Harry and Louise and other lies.
I wonder what their gift will be to us for the debate in 2024. I pray that those so firmly in opposition now and their families have the luxury of the total experience of today's healthcare system by then, because by then it very well may be too late. That will be divine justice.
Is it possible that the for-profit factor could be somewhat responsible for the "false increase in cost"?
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
No, the first thing we have to do is to control the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, which is costing us billions of dollars per year.
Yes, that is the problem as described so consistently by Obama during the campaign and now. However that is not "the biggest problem" IMO, the biggest problem is the unprecedented increase in cost. We can find it and cure it.
The problem that I see with your solution is trusting in the altruism of government. Changing to one faceless bureaucracy that excludes itself from lawsuits from a different group of ones that cannot is not an improvement.
The fraud and waste is from private sector abuse of the Medicare System. What controls do you suggest? Prison and loss of license to practice would be fine with me, any chance?
Which is more unrealistic, my trust in the altruism of government or your trust in the altruism of the for-profit private sector and the GOP?
I have the experience of the past 15 years as evidence. We have already tested the alternative of waiting or, in other words, doing nothing, it failed.
I asked if you thought the private, for-profit motivation 'might' have an effect on the "unprecedented increase in cost". Isn't the price of their stock, increased profits, and skyrocketing exec remuneration coming out of the healthcare system?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
If you want a comparison of private vs public run healthcare, look at Medicare vs Medicare Advantage for a modern example. Tell me which one is more wasteful, which one more fraud ridden, and which one costs more for the people it insures and you'll have answered the question of which sector does a better job with health insurance.
The Mayo Clinic has no problem taking Medicare, they dropped Medicare Advantage months ago leaving those who made the choice of taking it with far poorer choices in this area. Whose idea was that? 2 guesses! Just another private sector boondoggle from the G..you know who.
No it is not. The waste in bureaucratic red tape and errors in billing and administration of benefits is a large part of the problem as well. Why; because government rarely manages well and really screws it up when it is invested where it should not be.
What we need is comprehensive reform that regulates the Free Market while not stifling it. Tax breaks for business and those who purchase healthcare for themselves and their families. Things like deregulation that creates portable coverage. We need to pass Tort reform that really matters, as opposed to the straw man that libs make it out to be. And last but not least, a complete overhaul of the single most wasteful program government manages...Medicare!
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
The problem with the system is not just the abuse of the private sector, but Medicare itself. We need to revamp our system so we can catch the abuse before it does the damage. If a business runs their business like Medicare and Medicaid does, they wouldn't be in business very long. Obama proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care.
Again, the ability to sue shows no trust in the altruism of the company, just an understanding that we may keep them honest, the inclusion of the exclusion from lawsuits from the government program makes it clear that my mistrust is well founded.
And I answered that there is some things good (implication of some things bad) in both ways to do this, and that I prefer what comes good from the "profit-based" system, I even gave examples.
How will the usual GOP drumbeat for tort reform, if accomplished, keep the companies MORE honest? I still don't understand how huge increases in profits, stock prices, and executive compensation can possibly have a positive influence on healthcare costs. I will place my trust in a public option this time around because the private sector and your party choice have failed us since 1994. It's time for them to move over lest we delay action for 15 more years. I understand your position and it is on your last point that we differ.
The fact remains that the greatest amount of abuse comes from the private sector. If you mean to add additional inspectors to investigate the fraud, I'm for it. It is also a fact that Medicare is operated in a more effficient, at a lower cost to patient ratio than the private sector.
Tax Breaks, Supply Side?
"Tort Reform", when was the last time those who scream about it the loudest produced numbers to show what the resulting savings would be? Could it be a politically expedient red herring? What is fair tort reform when it comes to medical catastrophes?
Do you include fraud against Medicare in your "single most wasteful" comment? Also arguable.
Where have you heard cries for tort reform against insurance agencies? They want reform for the doctors not the insurance companies.
However, I'm willing to give up on "tort reform" (never wanted it anyway) to be able to have a system where the consumer has a check they can apply to it rather than have it specifically exempted from any recourse.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Oh yeah, the conservatives here in Texas told us a few years ago if we voted for tort reform, then Doctor's Malparctice insurance would come down, bringing with it the price of health insurance.
Well, it got voted in, and guess what? Not only did Doctors NOT pass their saving on to their patients, but health insurance rates have risen every single year since, and are predicted to rise by as much as 40% THIS YEAR ALONE!
Yup. And this tells me that there is some hidden "cost" that is being passed on and will continue to be passed on with the government program. Covering the cost rather than dealing with it will bankrupt us.
Tort reform seems foolish to me if you do it by capping "rewards". It would be best to have losses covered by the side who loses, it would give incentives to fight false lawsuits rather than settle and incentive not to file frivolous lawsuits. One thing that I know, exempting the only available coverage from lawsuits certainly isn't beneficial to the consumer.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
NO, this tells us that despite all their pious claims that they will do right by you and me if only we get rid of all those pesky regulations, insurance companies will not make any real attempt at lowering costs unless forced to do so.
Hence my suggestion that we find where they are hiding the "increase" and fix it. It's insane to suggest the only option to do that is a government takeover disguised as an "option".
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is exactly true ....bunch of meadowmuffins