I present to you, the new Healthcare plan!!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
A chart that's not designed to mock it from the outset would be more helpful.
The Other Guy
Spam King
But that would nullify the point of the post.
Rob Henderson
Banned
And it would probably discredit the source even more, too.
mmarsh
Active member
I am not in favor of the Presidents plan on this, as I prefer a single payer plan. However I will say that that at least the President is at least trying to do something on healthcare, instead of ignoring the problem completely or simply being on the payroll of HMOs, who have vested financial interest to see that any type of reform fails.
Its easy to mock the opposition when you provide no solutions of your own.
Its easy to mock the opposition when you provide no solutions of your own.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
A good direction to go would be the following:
Paying for the cheap treatments out of our own pockets but being covered for stuff that's well over $200. Of course it would be a nationwide plan.
It would discourage people from going to hospital for the most trivial stuff, but it would cover people from the really expensive stuff that can break people's lives.
It's an idea in a great book I'm reading right now, I'll talk about that later.
It's a system based on the Singapore model which has worked pretty well for the past 20 years. The individuals spend less and the government also spends less, even though in Singapore, price for commodities are really high.
The system I also liked so far was the partial payment.
Since the free medical systems just get their systems clogged to death, a subsidy based system isn't bad either. They have that over here and it's been working for me just fine and I don't think the system is draining the contry's treasury either.
However, I don't know how they cover the really expensive stuff.
Paying for the cheap treatments out of our own pockets but being covered for stuff that's well over $200. Of course it would be a nationwide plan.
It would discourage people from going to hospital for the most trivial stuff, but it would cover people from the really expensive stuff that can break people's lives.
It's an idea in a great book I'm reading right now, I'll talk about that later.
It's a system based on the Singapore model which has worked pretty well for the past 20 years. The individuals spend less and the government also spends less, even though in Singapore, price for commodities are really high.
The system I also liked so far was the partial payment.
Since the free medical systems just get their systems clogged to death, a subsidy based system isn't bad either. They have that over here and it's been working for me just fine and I don't think the system is draining the contry's treasury either.
However, I don't know how they cover the really expensive stuff.
For the last couple decades the plan of the Left is Nationalised medicine, & they continiously work in that direction. Like education, the more involved the Fed. Govt gets, the poorer the results. Daschle was Obama's 1st choice, meaning he was the best ideas, for HHS. Daschle said in his book that "cost reductions" are done through things like ending expensive drugs &treatments for Senior Citizens, basicly that they've lived a long life & should croak off to save the Govt. some money. We've heard about the VA scandal a few years ago, remember VA health care is Govt health care, let's spread it around!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I guess the best bet is for us to open up our own healthcare savings account so that when we reach old age, we'll have about twenty grand for medical spending.
But of course we'll have our own kids college funds.
And the bills we have to pay.
And all the injuries that happen before we get old.
Dear Lord....
But of course we'll have our own kids college funds.
And the bills we have to pay.
And all the injuries that happen before we get old.
Dear Lord....
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I'm afraid that if it's totally free, the system would get clogged (as is the case in England) so a partial payment would work just fine I think.
Unless you're old enough that they decide you're waste of money to treat.
mmarsh
Active member
George
For the past 12 years I have lived in a country that has a nationalised healthcare system. The fact is: It works. If you look at the list of the countries with the best healthcare systems it is those where the government runs it.
The top ten are all socialized systems.
- France
- Italy
- San Marino
- Andorra
- Malta
- Singapore
- Spain
- Oman
- Austria
- Japan
Private medicine does not work because as long as the system is FOR-PROFIT there will be an incentive to skimp, cheat and overcharge the patient.
You cannot imagine the pleasure I took when I told Oxford to take their insurance policy and to stick it when I got transferred to Europe. The fact is there are certain areas the the government does do very well.
The quality between France and the US healthcare is the same but the difference is that in France that quality is available to everyone and not just those who can afford it. Nobody can seriously say that the US healthcare system is good when there 47 Million Americans with no insurance at all. That's almost 1 in 5, for a 1st world country thats simply embarrassing.
there is a lot of doubt about the "47 million". Many are young people of the "I'm invincible" age who go w/o by choice. Do these Countries have large multi-generational slacker class? Why do top execs of multi national Corps come here for treatment instead of staying home?
Rob Henderson
Banned
Because it's the best money can buy.... If you have plenty of money. The point is not the best healthcare in the world... It's the happy medium between most effective healthcare and healthcare that's available to everyone.
mmarsh
Active member
According to who??? The article in Bizjournal says that 1/3 of people in Arizona alone have no insurance. 33% George, that's not peanuts.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/07/13/daily64.html
As for execs go, Henderson got that right. Nobody is faulting the quality of the healthcare only the cost. The reason they go to the US is because they don't qualify for care under other countries (as you must be a resident or citizen) and because they can afford it.
Which takes us to the problem of US Healthcare, you only get the best if you can afford. You are SOL if you cannot. How many people needing a heart transplant actually get one if they have no insurance or cash.
Remember medical care costs are the number 1 reason for family bankruptcy in the United States.
Our system sucks, and while this plan was not the one I was hoping for is sure as hell better than what we've got now.
Last edited:
Yea but I give ya 2 to 1 odd that our adminstration can screw it up within 6 months at the outside, the countries you listed used common sense to help people, the US govt will use stupidity to get as much money in new taxes as they can, and not send any of it to the new National health care plan to the point it goes under, plus the red tape will make a cut finger glad its not life threatening.
Thanks but I'll keep the health care plan I have now. If I am forced to lose it I'll just live till I die.
MediCare is sooo sucsessfull!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
That list is kinda funny. It rates South Korea as 58th. I'm actually extremely critical about South Korea but the healthcare system is one of the things I consider a major highlight.
So I'm not entirely sure about the list. I've lived in many places and I have to say, not only the price, but the average competence of the average doctor here is beyond what I normally find in the US.
The quality of healthcare in the US is quite poor, but I think the difference isn't the doctors but the nurses etc. who have a serious attitude problem.
To have Thai and Malaysian hospitals rated over South Korean hospitals is actually a pretty bad joke.
So I'm not entirely sure about the list. I've lived in many places and I have to say, not only the price, but the average competence of the average doctor here is beyond what I normally find in the US.
The quality of healthcare in the US is quite poor, but I think the difference isn't the doctors but the nurses etc. who have a serious attitude problem.
To have Thai and Malaysian hospitals rated over South Korean hospitals is actually a pretty bad joke.
Bror Jace
Active member
Every time the government gets involved in an industry, costs go up and quality goes down. There is a reason why (up until now) about the only government run business is the military and the post office.
A single payer system for the United States will mean a mad rush on health care providers for every illness ... real or imagined ... and the system will be overwhelmed. And with doctors' salaries essentially set by the government, fewer people will undergo the effort and expense of becoming doctors ... making the shortage even worse.
The resulting shortage in medical services will mean greater waits for treatment ... which will mean more deaths (a generalization applied over a population of 300,000,000 people.
The government's way to bring costs down is for treatments to be refused and long waiting lists will ensure another percent or so will die before getting treatment.
The US offers the greatest medical system in the world ... if you are willing to pay for it. And since your health should be at the top of your priority list, you SHOULD be willing to pay handsomely for it. Canadians regularly come to the US for treatments they are refused at home.
As previously said, the way to bring costs down is to establish medical savings accounts for all but the most catastrophic care and have people shop around for the services they want and the amount they are willing to pay. It's the only proven way to work.
A single payer system for the United States will mean a mad rush on health care providers for every illness ... real or imagined ... and the system will be overwhelmed. And with doctors' salaries essentially set by the government, fewer people will undergo the effort and expense of becoming doctors ... making the shortage even worse.
The resulting shortage in medical services will mean greater waits for treatment ... which will mean more deaths (a generalization applied over a population of 300,000,000 people.
The government's way to bring costs down is for treatments to be refused and long waiting lists will ensure another percent or so will die before getting treatment.
The US offers the greatest medical system in the world ... if you are willing to pay for it. And since your health should be at the top of your priority list, you SHOULD be willing to pay handsomely for it. Canadians regularly come to the US for treatments they are refused at home.
As previously said, the way to bring costs down is to establish medical savings accounts for all but the most catastrophic care and have people shop around for the services they want and the amount they are willing to pay. It's the only proven way to work.