New Comments : Health Care Debate: Health care reform via an open and respectful debate.

Comment by Health Care Debate

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:13:54 PDT

Status Changed from In Review to Active.

Comment by Health Care Debate

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:13:52 PDT

Status Changed from Active to In Review.

Comment by Health Care Debate

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:13:44 PDT

Status Changed from Active to Pending Approval.

Comment by vatesul

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:22:42 PDT

The Constitution creates the framework for governance, and lists what specific laws CAN'T do. As long as a law isn't infringing on a right outlined there, and it was enacted in accordance with the Constitution, it's legal.

Comment by k9corp123

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:42:52 PST

You Have All My Votes !!

Comment by k9corp123

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:42:01 PST

Thank You..I just sent an email to the White House today regarding the same issue. All I here people talk about is "How to Pay For Health Care" What about justifying the cost in the first place..My daughter just spent 3 days in the Hospital for a Routine Surgery..and We recieved a bill for $15,000..It is insane..Let's talk about justifying the cost..justify a $22 comb and $500 to just walk in the door and a $2000 bed...Why ? Because they can !! I believe there should be a " Cap" on every item and Service in the Health Care Industry..including Medications...Lets Stop talking "How To Pay" but instead "How Much To Pay"

Comment by trutane

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:21:08 PST

Much of our current healthcare strategy is focused on dealing with the aftermath of poor health rather than on preventing the problems that lead to poor health and in maintaining good health.

Along these lines, Esther Dyson has talked about the need to focus more on "health" than on healthcare: http://healthblog.xprize.org/2009/05/health-innovators-esther-dyson-on.html

I have started a small project to help motivate people to take charge of their health and improve their own physical fitness and nutrition: Let's have a national Jack LaLanne Day. Details at http://JLLDay.org

Comment by Kurt Fetherolf

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:48:36 PST

As an economist, my general belief is that competition facilitates inovation and reduction of net cost in real dollars. There are instances however, where competition is actually counter productive. We refer to these anomilies as natural monopolies. An example would be natural gass before deregulation. It's far too expensive to run two gas lines into every home, so a single carrier is provided and then regulated. After deregulation, only one carrier maintained the physical lines, but multiple companies vied to provide the service, still in conjunction with the original carrier. The end result, while offering competing providers, caused the price of a single therm of gas to jump almost 700%. Ironically, NG production is saturated with reserves now, but competition has caused what we refer to as an economic rent.
In many ways, private health coverage has produced the same quagmire, mainly because current health providers are for-profit industies that must return a share of those profits to the stock holders, either through dividends or appreciation. A government plan, of course, would not be constrained with this, so the excess money can be used for provider salaries, upgraded facilities, and improved patient care. And if you have doubts about the federal governments ability to implement such a system, I'd direct you to the US Postal system, which is both efficient (650 million pieces of mail a day) and self supporting (except in 2009). Few, if any, private insuers will be able to compete with this business model.
Lastly, if you compare GDP expendetures on health care in the current system with Average Life Expectancy, you'll see that the United States spends 14.6% of nominal GDP (# 1) while achieving an A.L.E of 78.2 years. (#42). By contrast, the UK has and expenditure of 7.7% with an A.L.E. of 79.4. In laymans terms, they spend half as much and live about a year older. There are other comparisons as well, but I digress.
Thank you for taking the time to read through all my economic dribble. If the numbers pointed a different way, I would oppose the current house measure, but in my studies, they simply do not.

Comment by bvdunkley67

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:27:14 PST

Let's hear from some people who have actually LIVED in countries where there is National Health Care. These scare stories are, I fear, greatly exaggerated. Even the scare stories rate higher than the nightmare scenarios so common in the US due to the complete ABSENCE of a National Health Care system.

I have lived in the UK and both of my children were born there. I have never heard such stories nor have I experienced anything negative in hospital there. Most Britons are PROUD of their health care system and regard the US as inferior in this regard.

I also lived in Japan for nineteen years and I must say their health system is superb. Our monthly premiums for a family of four were the equivalent of $300. For medical treatment of any kind, my husband paid only 10%. My two children and I (his dependents under our family policy) paid 30%. I won't say it was perfect in every respect. My opinion is that medical TRAINING of doctors in the United States is better than in Japan, but I believe the health care SYSTEM is excellent. No one goes without care. Care is affordable. Drugs are not expensive. Children's vaccinations are free. Japanese people regard these things as a human right and a basic common-sense practice of a civilized people. Being a very polite people, Japanese keep their opinions of American health care to themselves. But it's not hard to guess.

We hear so many scare stories and nightmare scenarios of doom and gloom regarding the adoption of a National Health Care system. Take the time to communicate with actual people who have lived with the benefits of National Health Care. They will probably tell you they would be reluctant to give it up... and they wouldn't trade places with YOU for all the world!

Comment by ksiner

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:04:37 PST

The 'public option' is not a complete government take-over of the healthcare system, yet an alarming number have the false idea that it is.

The healthcare plan currently proposed:

1st Tier: Those who like their current healthcare plan & insurance can keep it.

2nd Tier: Those who are working for smaller companies, aren't covered and can't afford such plans, etc. can join 'group plans' - formed to lower the cost of getting traditional insurance.

3rd Tier: For those who can't afford the above two, there would be a 'public option' plan.

Other important basic facts:

1. Insurance companies could not drop persons who are ill, or deny coverage due to 'pre-existing conditions'.

2. Large businesses (employing hundreds of thousands) would be required to provide affordable insurance options.

3. Everyone would be required to have a plan from one of the above 3 Tiers, based on income.

When persons are 'educated' by 'propaganda', some "basic facts" are needed.

Comment by ksiner

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:03:05 PST

The 'public option' is not a complete government take-over of the healthcare system, yet an alarming number have the false idea that it is.
Basic facts are needed on what is being proposed:

1st Tier: Those who like their current healthcare plan & insurance can keep it.

2nd Tier: Those who are working for smaller companies, aren't covered and can't afford such plans, etc. can join 'group plans' - formed to lower the cost of getting traditional insurance.

3rd Tier: For those who can't afford the above two, there would be a 'public option' plan.

Other important basic facts:

1. Insurance companies could not drop persons who are ill, or deny coverage due to 'pre-existing conditions'.

2. Large businesses (employing hundreds of thousands) would be required to provide affordable insurance options.

3. Everyone would be required to have a plan from one of the above 3 Tiers, based on income.

Some "basic facts" are needed to build consensus. This is a safety net America needs for all those currently falling through the cracks.

Comment by ksiner

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:40:18 PST

This is the bottom line requirement for an affluent country if it is to be 'civilized' and ethical. While persons see public 'education' as a right not to be deprived to the poor, healthcare is a basic pre-requisite right to all others - you are deprived of ALL other freedoms if you are deprived of required healthcare.

The current 'public option' is not a complete government take-over of the healthcare system, yet an alarming number have the false idea that it is.

1st Tier: Those who like their current healthcare plan & insurance can keep it.

2nd Tier: Those who are working for smaller companies, aren't covered and can't afford such plans, etc. can join 'group plans' - formed to lower the cost of getting traditional insurance.

3rd Tier: For those who can't afford the above two, there would be a 'public option' plan.

Other important basic facts:

1. Insurance companies could not drop persons who are ill, or deny coverage due to 'pre-existing conditions'.

2. Large businesses (employing hundreds of thousands) would be required to provide affordable insurance options.

3. Everyone would be required to have a plan from one of the above 3 Tiers, based on income.

When persons are 'educated' by commercials and biased radio, it becomes 'propaganda'. Some "basic facts" are needed.

Comment by elaine.almquist

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:48:34 PDT

This sounds like a good idea at first, but most Americans are not likely to understand not only what procedures they do and don't need to get, but also what they WILL need to have. I do agree that pricing should be available to patients before they receive treatment.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:50:05 PDT

Assuming Obamacare gets enacted.

Comment by maczter

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:20:12 PDT

It won't immediately lower health care costs and would be more of a long-term investment in the health of Americans. By bringing the cost of corn back in line with reality, it would decrease it's usage as a cheap substitute for healthy grains and sugar.

In "Food, Inc.", we're told that cattle ranchers only started feeding their cattle corn because it was so cheap and it fattens them up the fastest. At another point in the movie, it's mentioned that ~90% of the foods available in grocery stores are made from corn or corn-based products. They don't "do the math" for the viewers in the movie, but it jumped out at me that ~90% of foods in a typical grocery store are made from the ingredient that cattle ranchers give their cows "because it fattens them up the fastest". Reducing the incentive to use corn would reduce the number of food items containing corn and increase the food items containing healthier ingredients, which would, eventually lead to a reduction in obesity in the US, which would reduce health care costs by reducing the number of obesity-related health problems and insurance claims resulting from them. It's a long way around, but it's one that would be good for everyone in the long run.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:01:52 PDT

I like the idea of getting rid of farm subsidies so much, I think we should just eliminate them immediately.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:49:36 PDT

Yes.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:49:00 PDT

First, "Kill all the lawyers."

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:48:38 PDT

Women have access to essential health services today, I don't not think any of the reforms plan to discontinue services to women.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:47:44 PDT

LOL - 19 votes? How about this for a proposal: I think Obama should appoint a Magic Czar who will make everyone handsome, wealthy and wise.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:46:41 PDT

ObamaCare won't allow you to do this anymore. Everyone will be required to buy their policy - or face a 2.5% penalty.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:45:52 PDT

Sounds like a bad idea, unless I get to make the rules. Are you willing to let me be in charge?

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:44:50 PDT

In the United States once you get a condition your insurance company is forced to provide you coverage for the condition. If you choose to terminate your insurance plan by changing jobs, your new insurance company is required by law to provide coverage to you. If you lose your job, the insurance company is required by law to continue to sell you insurance for coverage. If you decide NOT to continue coverage and go into the market to shop for new insurance, insurance companies are NOT required to insure you for whatever you already have. Your alternatives are to a) continue your coverage, b) find a new job and elect open enrollment, c) move to the public hospital system for treatment, d) pay for the treatment you receive yourself.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:40:40 PDT

I believe this would be a mistake. Today we have a HUGE safety net for folks who can't afford health insurance. We can improve the safety net by moving it out of emergency rooms and into doctors offices - but requiring an insurance company to cover a group of people despite the fact that the company does not want to service them is not a good solution.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:37:11 PDT

Lots of folks argue that the health systems in Canada and the UK are wonderful. They are wonderfully free to use, but don’t think for a minute they are without cost. The biggest confusion comes down to two distinct issues:

* Delivery of health care services
* System of payment for health care services

When my friends from Canada and the UK suggest their health systems are great I pause. After a longer conversation I learn that, well, the fact that they don’t have to pay for health care is great. The delivery of the health care services leaves a lot to be desired. Canada’s admits their system is imploding. In the UK each year more than 4,000 mothers can’t get hospital beds and are forced to have their kids on elevators, offices and on toilets. These socialized systems have their share of mistakes as well.

Now when I talk to various people from the U.S. (Democrats and Republicans) I ask them about their health system. The Democrats all will tell you it is terrible. The Republicans will tell you it is the best in the world. What is the disconnect? It is actually a very simple disconnect, but often hard to uncover while everyone is yelling at each other (i.e. you are unamerican, you are a racist, yadda, yadda and so on).

When you actually scratch the surface of the debate between Democrats and Republicans it is clear that everyone thinks the health care delivered to them is great. They like their doctors. They like the medication they receive. They like their hospitals. In fact both Democrats and Republicans seem to LOVE the delivery of health services in the US. Now ask either a Democrat or a Republican about our system of payment for health care services and both sides agree 100% that our system sucks. Ironically, we agree – we have the best health system and the worst payment system.

Now this is where the debate gets sticky (i.e. Democrats and Republicans disagree). Conservatives want to fix the existing insurance system to better deliver the existing health care services. The Democrats want to scrap the existing insurance system for a single payer system (i.e. government run). The good news is that NO ONE wants to lose the existing system of delivery of care. We all want to keep our doctors, the cool medications, the advanced surgery centers and so on.

Conservatives aren’t heartless bastards who want millions of Americans to die, instead we are just like Democrats. We want to keep our world class health care system. Our biggest concern is that a single payer system (i.e. government run option) would preclude us from keeping the current delivery system. We believe that the current payment system (private insurance) can be reformed. Lots of us have plans. Conservatives don’t want to risk our health care delivery system. I think Democrats would agree with us. Now if we could just come up with a set of reforms that fix our current system and expanded access to those who need it most.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:35:48 PDT

Bringing market forces to bear on medical service would be helpful. If you charge $1000 for an MRI and I can easily see that someone else will do it for $500 - I need some sort of incentive to do business with the guy selling it for $500. Right now, we don't care how much anything costs because a) we don't know how much it costs, b) we don't know how much anyone else charges and c) we can't very well shift our purchase. Reform that would allow market forces back in health care would be helpful.

Comment by amuse

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:32:45 PDT

Following the Constitution is always a good idea. Not sure which clauses allow Congress to make me buy insurance.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:09:00 PDT

The best practices when? This proposal will freeze innovation. Every new procedure started out as experimental and outside the existing knowledge base.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:05:31 PDT

What kind of reforms. That's a really vague proposal.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:43:18 PDT

Those items should be paid for out of a medical IRA. Insurance should be reserved for extraordinary expenses like cancer, heart disease or trauma. Imagine how expensive automobile insurance would be if oil changes and fuel were included.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:21:59 PDT

The UK has a serious shortage of dentists. There are actually news articles about people using do-it-yourself dentistry and using pliers to pull out teeth. I've read where UK dentists will pull out all of a patient's teeth and fit dentures rather than try to save the healthy teeth.

I want my health care professionals working form my interests, not an unaccountable government bureacracy.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:01:47 PDT

What about medical privacy? Who has access to these records? I'm all for efficiency and quick retrieval, but I don't trust the federal government to possess them.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:56:05 PDT

Doesn't Singapore have that requirement?

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:49:52 PDT

That would be great, but there would have to be an airtight way of keeping the trial layers from bypassing the system.

Comment by Bryan Sexton

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:41:57 PDT

Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition for someone who has no previous insurance? No auto insurance company would let you make a claim on a car that was damaged prior to the insurance policy being in force.

If you have continuous coverage, perhaps there should be a way of switching companies.

Comment by amuse

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:01:32 PDT

Tort reform Rocks! We could save up to $200 billion with legal reform.

Comment by amuse

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:00:40 PDT

Here, here! I love this idea. Not sure it will lower health care costs, but damn I hate subsidies for corn, oil and coal. Lets get rid of them all. Why should energy produced via corn, oil and coal be subsidized and not wind, hydro and nuclear power?

Comment by amuse

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:59:18 PDT

Um, what about the Constitution? What if I don't want to set up a health savings account? What if I just want to pay for health care myself?

Comment by amuse

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:58:26 PDT

Should we also adopt their political systems? Singapore isn't the land of the free. France is a mess. Well Japan is cool, but unless we all start eating rice... What if increasing life expectancy means you have to stop eating whatever you want whenever you want it? Our freedom to do whatever we want sometimes means we are free to make our lives shorter (hang gliding, obesity, unprotected sex).

Comment by steve.brewer

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:42:12 PDT

Insurance provides a very valuable service in all kinds of industries by providing financial protection from in-frequent and unusually expensive events. I enjoy a lot of piece of mind because my home is insured against fire and my family is protected if I died or were disabled while they are dependent on me.

Insurance increases the total cost of any system - you are introducing a third party into the provider - customer equation. More money is spent in total dealing with home fires because of insurance - they pay the costs of dealing with the fire, plug cover operating expenses and make a profit.

In health care - EVERYTHING is covered by insurance, this drives up the cost of health care. This makes as much sense as having gas insurance - just in case your car needs a fill up.

Take a look at the few areas of health care that are outside the blanket of insurance - Lasik eye surgery has gotten cheaper, better, and more available during the last 20 years.

Comment by steve.brewer

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:30:49 PDT

It's not really insurance at that point. If you can buy insurance after the fact - why ever pay for it before hand?

What this leads to is only people who have a major claim buy insurance. Insurance doesn't work if everyone is getting more money out then they put in...

Comment by myerman

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:56:48 PDT

An interesting thought. The internet has managed to kill off all kinds of middle men out there, perhaps the insurance companies are next? You have to ask yourself, why do they exist? What benefit do they bring to the table? So far, it seems that they do a good job of hurting both sides. Any thoughts on that?

Comment by anthony.martinez

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:07:08 PDT

This is what, a new poll-tax? Was that discriminatory tax not abolished for infringing upon the freedom of American citizens? How is this any different?

Comment by anthony.martinez

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:05:39 PDT

These individuals already support the vast majority of tax revenue wasted by the federal government. Continuing to tax them at a higher rate will not be beneficial to anyone in the short or long term - economically, or medically.

Comment by johnlouisstueve

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:48:39 PDT

Although this was certainly the closest fit to how America should address the health care problem, I am not sure I would terminate health insurance companies completely. Everyone should have access to health coverage, poor or wealthy. However, if you have money to pay for better coverage, I think this should also be an option if possible.