Gingrich

Non-Allegiance related. High probability of spam. Pruned regularly.
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 6 2011, 09:16 PM) My ideas only need to be passed once, yours need to be passed 50 times.
What do you want me to say Germ? I cannot advocate something Unconstitutional.

You really want to know my opinion? Despite it being illegal, I wouldn't be horribly unhappy with a copy of the Swiss system. I would never advocate for it though and I don't think it will end all of our problems.

However, here is an idea that you could couple into yours:

We can get a bit more heavy handed and outright ban health plans... allowing, at best, a HSA-ish plan with say a $5,000 deductible and a $2,000 pharmacy deductible. A catastrophic plan in the truest sense. To ease the impact to the poor we can have some sort of government guarantee of a Health Savings plan, some intricate tax law that will incentivize people to save money just in case... but if they fall below some threshold of savings the government will provide credit... some some undesirable stipulations or some such to prevent abuse of the more well off.

Such a plan would a) add a new layer of competition in the industry, b) make people see how much stuff really costs, and c) help our savings rate (not germane to the topic at hand, but a worthy effort by itself).

Medicare/Medicaid can be folded into this plan as well. There should be some savings to be seen without really impacting care... I suppose it would require some sort of mandate as well... but then... this plan is just sounding like a government mandated health plan anyways.

Coupled with your idea, it would probably have reasonable affect on the market, moreso than Obamacare. It would piss off even more people and the Insurance industry would probably be against it as well and the medical provider community would be absolutely irate.


Anyways you only know I'm arguing with you for the sake of arguing with you right? I would prefer to get back on the bash Gingrich, bring our troops home topic. :biggrin:
Last edited by Camaro on Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Dec 6 2011, 08:28 PM) This is interesting. Could you link me to a source please?
The study is out there somewhere too, its kinda older... but here is a British article on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3242920.stm

QUOTE The study showed that Kaiser Permanente had much shorter waiting times, employed many more doctors and provided better care to patients than the NHS.

This is despite the fact that both spend roughly the same amount of money per patient.[/quote]

Of course, a lot can change in 9 years.

Our healthcare costs have nearly doubled in that time, how has the NHS fared?
Last edited by Camaro on Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Raveen
Posts: 9104
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Birmingham, UK
Contact:

Post by Raveen »

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 7 2011, 07:41 AM) What do you want me to say Germ? I cannot advocate something Unconstitutional.
Why on Earth not? If the constitution doesn't give you the space to make needed reforms then, IMO, you should change the constitution rather than just sit back with your hands tied.
ImageImage
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
Duckwarrior
Posts: 1967
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:00 am
Location: la Grande-Bretagne

Post by Duckwarrior »

I hope they have introduced practises that work better since then, no matter where they originated. Just doing things because you've always done them that way would be ridiculous when another system or elements of it are shown to be superior.

One idea I would prefer to see rejected though:

QUOTE Kaiser has settled three cases for alleged patient dumping—the delivery of homeless hospitalized patients to other agencies or organizations in order to avoid expensive medical care since 2002. During that same period, the Office of the Inspector General settled 102 cases against U.S. hospitals which resulted in a monetary payment to the agency.
On November 16, 2006, Los Angeles city officials filed civil and criminal legal action against Kaiser Permanente for patient dumping as reported by National Public Radio's All Things Considered.
The legal filings are intended to punish hospitals for releasing homeless hospital patients (often via taxis) on the sidewalk near relief shelters instead of accepting responsibility for releasing hospital patients into the care of a relative, or of a recognized agency.
The city's decision to charge Kaiser Permanente reportedly was influenced by security camera footage, allegedly showing a 63-year-old patient, dressed in hospital gown and slippers, wandering toward a mission on Skid Row, as outlined in a 20-page complaint. City officials say that as many as 10 other area hospitals are under investigation for possible future action for this practice.[/quote]
Last edited by Duckwarrior on Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy.
notjarvis
Posts: 4629
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:08 am
Location: Birmingham, UK

Post by notjarvis »

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Dec 7 2011, 08:51 AM) Why on Earth not? If the constitution doesn't give you the space to make needed reforms then, IMO, you should change the constitution rather than just sit back with your hands tied.
I'd agree with Raveen here.
The constitution was a fantastic document for it's time and laid the foundation for many of the most admirable things about America, and enshrined many things which are the foundation of the US's freedom on a large scale.

However - it is still a document of it's time.
If the world has changed so things are no longer relevant, or new information comes suggesting some things could be done better, it seems foolhardy to stick to it as written.

Sometimes I feel like the UK could do with a written constitution of sorts, but if it means some parts of our law stagnate when items in it become irrelevant, then I'd say no thanks.
Last edited by notjarvis on Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Dec 6 2011, 11:51 PM) Why on Earth not? If the constitution doesn't give you the space to make needed reforms then, IMO, you should change the constitution rather than just sit back with your hands tied.
notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Dec 7 2011, 12:33 AM) I'd agree with Raveen here.
The constitution was a fantastic document for it's time and laid the foundation for many of the most admirable things about America, and enshrined many things which are the foundation of the US's freedom on a large scale.

However - it is still a document of it's time.
If the world has changed so things are no longer relevant, or new information comes suggesting some things could be done better, it seems foolhardy to stick to it as written.

Sometimes I feel like the UK could do with a written constitution of sorts, but if it means some parts of our law stagnate when items in it become irrelevant, then I'd say no thanks.
:facepalm:

The respective STATE GOVERNMENTS, can do this. The FEDERAL government is supposed to be limited. Just because the UK is used to having extreme centralized power in their nation doesn't mean that the US is, or should be. State and Local government already influences American's lives FAR, FAR more than the Federal government does. That people somehow believe that National government has the capability to solve everything is foolish and misdirected.

...besides, the only real unconstitutional part of the healthcare bill is the individual mandate. I don't see the rest of it being struck down, even though I would argue it is outside of the scope of governance that the Feds should be involved in.

Look at it this way, had the Federal government not become this bloated behemoth that it is today (that is in terrible debt), then the respective states could tax FAR more and provide the services that its people want... instead we get a one size fits all national policy that pisses off half of the nation.


Your nations history doesn't lend you to have an even remotely similar mindset as Americans in their attitude towards centralized government.


Also I would trade government stagnation and gridlock over the ability to nearly overhaul every law in the matter of a couple of years like you British technically could... the potential for abuse is far too great.
Last edited by Camaro on Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 7 2011, 04:42 AM) The Tea Party started in 2008. The upswing is that it wouldn't have been co-opted by the Republicans because it woulda remainded a sleeper force rather than an overt one.

Anyways I like this ad, deliciously anti-war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY...player_embedded
Nice! :thumbsup:
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Dec 7 2011, 10:51 AM) Why on Earth not? If the constitution doesn't give you the space to make needed reforms then, IMO, you should change the constitution rather than just sit back with your hands tied.
This is the bit where Libertarianism (and people skirting the fringe of it like Camaro) is like a cult.

The Constitution is a sacred, flawless document, and the founding fathers were geniuses, titans among mere mortals.

That seems to be the only exception to the other part of the creed which states that governments and taxes are inherently evil.

I swear it's a religion, and like all religions it doesn't really need to make sense.


Sorry Camaro :)
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

i don't have much intricate knowledge of the health care system, but my general of knowledge of things leads me to ask these questions:

Is there a market for providing general health care services - prescriptions, physicals, blood tests, etc. - at low cost? Is it possible to create a profitable business model that does exactly that?

if the answer to those questions is yes, well, the solution to the inflated health care cost problem probably lies somewhere in that direction - not in government subsidies, regulation, and oversight.

@#(!, the government itself making the necessary investments to build and implement a program like that would probably be more effective at solving the problem than arguing about and implementing convoluted laws and policies.
takingarms1
Posts: 3052
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am

Post by takingarms1 »

Lindy_Hop wrote:QUOTE (Lindy_Hop @ Dec 7 2011, 12:55 AM) Medical malpractice tort reform by the numbers is a stupid boogey man political issue and not an actual cost saver. I actually took a class that covered the matter in detail a couple years back and here is the simple English report you want to read if you would like to educate yourself on the matter.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB_Report_200907.pdf

The TLDR summary with spin removed. Malpractice premiums and payouts constitute less than 1% of healthcare costs and payouts, are not responsible for the rise in healthcare costs, and are generally made on a rational basis with the biggest awards going to the worst injuries.
I was going to post something like this. Tort reform generally is the biggest red herring in politics today. Anyone who practices law in the area can tell you that if there's reform needed, it's in the opposite direction. Insurance companies generally are screwing over claimants but no one cares because most of you will never be in a position to have to collect on a policy.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
Post Reply