For Health Care Reform to Succeed

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
For health care reform to suceed there are some principles that the American public will have to understand.

#1. We presently do not have a health care system in the US. We have a health care market. A health care market cannot control prices. Supply and Demand will. Markets will focus on profits and not healt care access and availability of basic services. There for limits must be placed on the market.
#2. To reform health care we must identify the problem. The problem with US health care is that it has a poor cost benefit ratio. 40 million do not have insurance, 30 million more are underinsured. Those who do have insurance have to worry about if they can pay and going bankrupt and there is a vast differance in health care quality based upon the ability to pay.
#3. We must recognise that access to health care and basic health care services are a fundamental human right.
#4. No one should ever have to go bankrupt or deeply into debt because they or a loved one becomes ill or injured.
#5. Competition is an essential element to any succesful health care system.

Understanding these 5 concepts there are 3 principles that we can adopt to resolve this issue in our country. Only two of these are being addressed by the present health care reform legislation. Eventually this should lead to the third reform.

#1. Insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Nor can they deny coverage for basic care.
#2. Everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor.
#3. Doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices.

By adopting these reforms we can address the two major problems of reforming our health care system. Financing a health care system and cost control of health care. Reforms #1 and 2 address financing health care. #3 covers cost.

The current proposes legislation only covers financing health care reform. It does not yet adress cost control.
 
Topspin said:
moron
we must get 60 democratic senate votes
Click to expand...
I said "Suceed" not "Pass through congress" or "Become Law". The whole idea behind the reforms is that they work. Just because congress votes for the reforms do not mean those reforms will work unless they address the principles I stated.
 
Topspin said:
your insane, no profit child please
Click to expand...
How is that insane? If we can run our massive educational system on the basis that a basic education is a human right as non-profit organizations then why couldn't we do the same in our health care system?

Besides, I didn't say "No Profits". I said Insurance companies cannot make profits from providing basic care services. That is the model for health care insurance in all wealthy, industrialized nations. If it works for the rest of the world, why wouldn't it work for us? Please explain.
 
Last edited:
it's 110% insane.
OK, your referring to nationalized hc like schools and like Europe. I'm ok with that, but that's not at all what we are pursuing.
 
not only that Harry Ried is running scared like he's the minority.
Must be the back room asskicking the blue dogs are giving him.
 
Topspin said:
it's 110% insane.
OK, your referring to nationalized hc like schools and like Europe. I'm ok with that, but that's not at all what we are pursuing.
Click to expand...
No I'm not talking about nationalizing health care. I'm stating that to finance health care limits will have to be placed on the market. That a demand market economy approach to health care results in run away costs becuase as a market economy it is focused on profits and not creating access and affordability.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No I'm not talking about nationalizing health care. I'm stating that to finance health care limits will have to be placed on the market. That a demand market economy approach to health care results in run away costs becuase as a market economy it is focused on profits and not creating access and affordability.
Click to expand...

You need to be taken out back and shot.
You can't arbitrarily legislate out profit from public companies.
 
Topspin said:
You need to be taken out back and shot.
You can't arbitrarily legislate out profit from public companies.
Click to expand...
Two questions. How would this be arbirtray? And why not? Is Blue Cross profits more important than the nations public health? Why can't we do what the rest of the modern industrialized nations have done?
 
Go Universal HC
you can't have a bastardization.
You either have for profit or not.
Personally I think nationalized is the way to go, but dems don't have the Juavos.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No I'm not talking about nationalizing health care. I'm stating that to finance health care limits will have to be placed on the market. That a demand market economy approach to health care results in run away costs becuase as a market economy it is focused on profits and not creating access and affordability.
Click to expand...
Your claim of runaway cost being due to market pressures is not borne out by reality. Undue increases in costs in a free market are caused by either an unprecedented increase in demand for a product, or an unprecedented decrease (or anticipated decrease) in supply. Certainly health care costs have risen the past few decades at outlandish rates, but where is the evidence this is due simply to market pressures? Where is the unprecedented increase in demand, or the sudden drop in supply? No, blaming market pressures and profit motive for the health care crisis - which is, indeed due to out of control costs - is a rather lame (though typical) anti-capitalist wash.

Additionally, health care is not a free market, and has not been since Uncle Sam put a system in place to curb snake oil salesmen. Health care IS a regulated market, from licensing of physicians to requirements demanding a long, drawn out, and VERY expensive process to get new medicines, treatments, and medical equipment into the market. Even the health care insurance market is regulated, with every state having its state auditor to assure insurance companies follow their contracts, as well as laws regulating what can and cannot go into those contracts, etc.

And if you REALLY want to use the public education system as the basis for adding health care to the public system, that's not exactly going to strengthen your argument.
 
Props good luck
take a look at laser surgery, not covered by most insurance and competition galor. Prices have plummetted. We are being sold a bag of goods.
 
Topspin said:
Props good luck
take a look at laser surgery, not covered by most insurance and competition galor. Prices have plummetted. We are being sold a bag of goods.
Click to expand...
If you want to call having your mouth pried open and a bill of goods shoved down your throat with a cannon rod, then yes, we are being "sold" a bill of goods.

Here's a suggestion: pull back about 90% of federal regulations and requirements in health care. Much of federal regulations are written in a manner to quite literally micro-manage the entire medical research process. What the F to politicians and lawyers know about medical research? They make the process so convoluted and complex, it's almost impossible to comply with one set of regulations without running afoul with another set. It's almost as bad as our tax code. The current system is reminiscent of the days when congress made engineering decisions on how to control emissions and "improve" efficiency in U.S. made automobiles. We still haven't fully recovered from that.

I'd be willing to bet that an honest, unbiased analysis of our health care system were to be cconducted, the majority of pressure on rising prices has comne not from market pressures, but from ever escalating costs of meeting federal regulations and requirements.

It's time to rewrite the laws governing medical research and health care in general in a manner that they still protect the people from the ever-present snake oil salesman, but allow the scientists actually doing the research to determine the best manner to assure their products do what they claim they will do, and in a manner that maximizes safety of the patient.
 
Topspin said:
Go Universal HC
you can't have a bastardization.
You either have for profit or not.
Personally I think nationalized is the way to go, but dems don't have the Juavos.
Click to expand...
Who's talking about that? I'm talking about the USA doing what the rest of the wealthy industrialized nations have done. This, in most cases, is not nationilization. I'm refering to models, such as, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, not necessarily single provider systems such as Great Britain or Canada. (BTW, Great Britain and Canada still have public insurance companies but has similiar market limits as the other nations mentioned).

You still keep avoiding my question. If the other modernized, wealthy nations can implement these types of reforms and market limits to improve cost and access then why can't we?
 
I don't know, but I'm not for screwing people who have capital invested.
If you owned and insurance company why would you want the gov legislating away your profit. Maybe that's why, in this country we expect to be rewarded for risking capital.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Who's talking about that? I'm talking about the USA doing what the rest of the wealthy industrialized nations have done. This, in most cases, is not nationilization. I'm refering to models, such as, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, not necessarily single provider systems such as Great Britain or Canada. (BTW, Great Britain and Canada still have public insurance companies but has similiar market limits as the other nations mentioned).

You still keep avoiding my question. If the other modernized, wealthy nations can implement these types of reforms and market limits to improve cost and access then why can't we?
Click to expand...

If their systems are so great, why is it that you haven't moved over there yet?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
For health care reform to suceed there are some principles that the American public will have to understand.

#1. We presently do not have a health care system in the US. We have a health care market. A health care market cannot control prices. Supply and Demand will. Markets will focus on profits and not healt care access and availability of basic services. There for limits must be placed on the market.
#2. To reform health care we must identify the problem. The problem with US health care is that it has a poor cost benefit ratio. 40 million do not have insurance, 30 million more are underinsured. Those who do have insurance have to worry about if they can pay and going bankrupt and there is a vast differance in health care quality based upon the ability to pay.
#3. We must recognise that access to health care and basic health care services are a fundamental human right.
#4. No one should ever have to go bankrupt or deeply into debt because they or a loved one becomes ill or injured.
#5. Competition is an essential element to any succesful health care system.

Understanding these 5 concepts there are 3 principles that we can adopt to resolve this issue in our country. Only two of these are being addressed by the present health care reform legislation. Eventually this should lead to the third reform.

#1. Insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Nor can they deny coverage for basic care.
#2. Everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor.
#3. Doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices.

By adopting these reforms we can address the two major problems of reforming our health care system. Financing a health care system and cost control of health care. Reforms #1 and 2 address financing health care. #3 covers cost.

The current proposes legislation only covers financing health care reform. It does not yet adress cost control.
Click to expand...

Price fixing only covers the symptoms, it doesn't cover the problem. I've rarely seen a country use price fixing that had things turn out well.

Canada price fixes their drugs, though, and that has resulted in much lower pharmaceutical costs. They're in the position of being nearly irrelevant to the total equation though; drug companies still sell to them grudgingly, but it would hurt their bottom line a lot and they'd have to make massive R&D cuts if the US did the same.

I think one answer to the problem of perscription drug costs would be to ban direct-to-consumer advertising, and require drug companies to spend at least 50% of revenue on R&D. Then we can see what to do next.

But for the rest of the healthcare system, we need to find similar ways to cut costs here and there. Price fixing doesn't do that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Two questions. How would this be arbirtray? And why not? Is Blue Cross profits more important than the nations public health? Why can't we do what the rest of the modern industrialized nations have done?
Click to expand...

Insurance company profits aren't really a significant contributing factor to our overall costs. Profits are like 6% of their revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top