The U.S. Health Care Debate

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes they fixed the biggest flaws by using strong regulations.
One of the flaw i was making allusion is like : private clinics giving higher priority for botox injection than cancer screening test because the former net bigger profit.

The biggest problem we face now is that a vast proportion of doctor leave Canada, so the waiting time are very long and finding a family doctor is near impossible.

Gee, almost sounds like a failure of the system.

"But the mandate doesn't require small businesses to provide health insurance"

The article even states this. Talk about a knee jerk response...

Well, not now. And just how small is small? 10 employees, 50, 100?

Any way, it's going to hurt their smaller competitors. Like regional chains that liberals in the US are always whining are getting driven out of business by Walmart. And then said idiots demand a slew of more regulations that will hamper the smaller stores more than Walmart.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that we can all agree that healthcare in the US is broken and needs to be reformed. Very few people don't believe that there is a major problem with our system. As I don't see health-care as a God provided right, but rather a recent man-made privelage, I expect that there would be problems with a modern system that would cover 300 million people without stealing from the wealthy to pay for people who don't care enough to provide for themselves or their families.

We all agree, but where some of us are open to keeping the problems going - but stealing a rich man's wallet to pay for the system, others recognize that the underlying problems need to be resolved before "who is paying" will matter in the long term.

We don't know what we are paying for. Simply using someone elses money to pay for it as a solution is just adding to the the inequity and long term unsustainability of the system. Lets resolve the issues that can be resolved in short order. Once this happens, we can leave it up to the States like we leave auto and home insurance etc; some have State backed options, others don't.

We are starting to rely on hairbrained, massive, unread, partisan, treatises as legislation. Peoples hired hands don't even read the bills anymore. We are spending more money on things that we understand less in the hopes of solving problems.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In the UK, some people are suggesting a fee for visiting the doctor:

The Social Market Foundation said the only way for the NHS to cope was to raise taxes to put more money into the system, limit demand or work more effectively.

The NHS is already looking to make savings and the think-tank said there was little appetite for tax rises.

Instead, they said charging for GPs would be a good way to reduce demand.

Report author David Furness said: "It would get people thinking twice about whether the visit was essential.

"If we don't introduce rationing like this, there will be rationing by stealth through waiting lists, crumbling hospitals and poor quality services."

CR

[Lemur]

The truth, which I've never seen any politician admit, is that rationing of some sort is not only inevitable, it's already in place. Everywhere. The only question is how do you implement it.

[Xiahou]

The truth, which I've never seen any politician admit, is that rationing of some sort is not only inevitable, it's already in place. Everywhere. The only question is how do you implement it.

If I can buy as much of something as I can afford, it's not rationing... or am I missing your meaning?

Edit:
Unsurprisingly, the current Democrat proposal is basically a turd.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

That completely undercuts the administration's argument for hurriedly ramming this bill through Congress. According to the CBO, the cost of doing nothing would indeed be cheaper than rushing through the current proposals- not the other way around, as has been suggested.

If we're going to do this, can we at least take some time and try to put a little thought into it? How many times are artificial deadlines and threats of impending doom going to be used to rush bills through Congress (often before they can even be read)?

[Lemur]

If I can buy as much of something as I can afford, it's not rationing... or am I missing your meaning?

Unless you are independently wealthy and wish to blow your fortune on medical treatment, your healthcare choices are rationed by your insurance company.

According to the CBO, the cost of doing nothing would indeed be cheaper than rushing through the current proposals- not the other way around, as has been suggested.

If we're going to do this, can we at least take some time and try to put a little thought into it?

Sounds good to me. Where are the experts, the visionaries, the eggheads who can really examine this problem? Shouldn't there be blue-ribbon commissions or something, or are we already past that? Rushed, sloppy reform sounds worse than no reform at all.

As broken and untenable as I think our current system is, I despair of the congresscritters improving on it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

[QUOTE=Lemur;2292688]Unless you are independently wealthy and wish to blow your fortune on medical treatment, your healthcare choices are rationed by your insurance company.


Sounds good to me. Where are the experts, the visionaries, the eggheads who can really examine this problem? Shouldn't there be blue-ribbon commissions or something, or are we already past that? Rushed, sloppy reform sounds worse than no reform at all.

As broken and untenable as I think our current system is, I despair of the congresscritters improving on it.[/QUOTE]

The best way to achieve that is to demand the congresscitters to be in it. same with their pension plan & cola's.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Unless you are independently wealthy and wish to blow your fortune on medical treatment, your healthcare choices are rationed by your insurance company.


Sounds good to me. Where are the experts, the visionaries, the eggheads who can really examine this problem? Shouldn't there be blue-ribbon commissions or something, or are we already past that? Rushed, sloppy reform sounds worse than no reform at all.

As broken and untenable as I think our current system is, I despair of the congresscritters improving on it.

I've never had my treatment "rationed". I spend around $800 a month (Plan, Meds, co-pays, etc) and get whatever I need. I get numerous procedures every year. Empire blue Cross has been pretty good. I'm worried because I can't pay more than $800 per month and the rate of increase is faster than I am earning by a mile.

Health Care is broken partially because of adverse selection in the private system, partially because there is a veil over the prices that have an indirect but eventual impact on premium.

The system is broken because the care is becoming too expensive for anyone to afford. There is no magic bullet to solve this. Make a government plan and you've gotten rid of adverse selection, but they have no intention of increasing transparency, which will just mean that in a few years we have an even more broken government plan.