By I have no issue with the Pentagon wanting to cut costs, but what I don’t agree with is that it appears no one else in the government wants to seriously cut costs while the costs the Pentagon is being forced to cut are on those who actually earned the benefits they are receiving, military retirees:
– Defense Secretary Robert Gates is betting that Americans’ frustration with a ballooning deficit will finally allow him to trim one of the government’s most politically protected entitlement programs: the military’s $50 billion-a-year health care system.
The defense chief has tried to push similar proposals through Congress before and failed. And this year’s pitch is a particularly fraught with political risk. President Barack Obama is defending his own health care plan from threats of repeal in the House, while Republicans are looking for ways ahead of the 2012 election to discredit the administration’s commitment to the troops.
The military health care program, set up in the 1960s and known as TRICARE, has exploded in cost in recent years with some 10 million individuals now eligible for coverage, including active-duty personnel, retirees, reservists and their families. The price tag has climbed from $19 billion a year a decade ago to its current $50 billion.
Last month, Congress voted to extend coverage of children of service members and retirees until the age of 26, putting the program in line with new requirements for civilian policies. [Associated Press]
What is interesting about this is that Gates has been trying to cut costs by canceling weapon systems and bases that Congress keeps finding ways to keep going in order to protect jobs in their districts. It is looking like military retirees are going to be the easier targets than the big ticket defense spending programs.
You can read more on this topic over at This Ain’t Hell.
3:29 am on January 8th, 2011 1
Cutting Obamacare would save over 500 Billion. How much does DOD need? I propose we shut down DHS since they aren't actually making us safer and transfer the funds.
4:15 am on January 8th, 2011 2
Defined benefits are more secure for the recipient but are an accounting hazard because they are essentially IOUs dependent on undetermined future revenues. A few days ago, there was a news story which clearly explained the cost-versus-revenue difference between Social Security and Medicare. Over a lifetime, SS recipients are expected to receive about 10% less than what they paid in. It's Medicare that's not sustainable with recipients expected to receive about benefits about 40% more than the total taxes paid in. Growing retirement health care costs are a national problem that's going to get a lot worse. Retiree health care coverage provides security to older people yet at the same time tags future generations with an IOU. Retiree health benefits should not be the first expense on the chopping block, but it will need to be examined as part of a national overhaul of how retirement is funded. I have a defined benefit pension right now, and I would be very surprised if it remains that way until I am old enough to retire. I am envious of early baby boomers who will enjoy a comfortable retirement with "earned" defined benefits funded by us younger working folks who won't get the same guaranteed benefits when we retire. We're expected to pay for the "earned" benefits of others while simultaneously funding our own retirement through defined contribution accounts like 401ks and IRAs.
5:16 am on January 8th, 2011 3
Military retirees are an innocuous group to target for the leftist. They
can raise the medical cost of tricare or cut our benefits without worrying
about us protesting in front of the White House. In my opinion, we do not
have a propensity to do that. Not in our nature.
6:41 am on January 8th, 2011 4
Wackos coming out of woodworks and shooting a congresswoman in Arizona. Was that what the Nevada senatorial candidate meant by "Second Amendment remedies"?
7:04 am on January 8th, 2011 5
I'll just feed this here since is started:
She is a military spouse. Her husband is an astronaut training for the last shuttle mission and her brother-in-law (her husband's twin brother) is also an astronaut currently up in the space station.
I know these guys are trained to compartmentalize but I am sure it will be difficult.
7:29 am on January 8th, 2011 6
Other advanced countries are as healthy as we are, but they spend less on health care. I mean their total spending per person, public and private, is less than our total, public and private. How do they accomplish that? If we can figure it out, maybe we can spend less while maintaining a high quality of care.
8:14 am on January 8th, 2011 7
Glans#6, Wow! Do you really believe that Government controlled health care
would be cheaper' more efficient than the free market system we have now?
The socialized medical care in Canada, UK, France, Germany, is way inferior
to our system. What government program has ever been more efficient and
cheaper than the private sector? You want a bureaucrat to determine what
care you will get and where you will get and when? Read up on the pros and
cons of their systems compared to us. There is not enough space here for
me to point out the facts. The general public is overwhelmingly against
Obama care.
8:45 am on January 8th, 2011 8
#6 Feel free to move to one of those "advanced" countries. I wish to keep the Free Market System we now have.
It saved my life in 2005/06.
Other than that, Jeff Fisher said it very well.
8:47 am on January 8th, 2011 9
Around the time Obama's health care legislation was being debated, there were some good articles tackling that question, but I'm not ambitious enough to search for them. Figuring out how to restructure our health care system to improve its effectiveness is half the battle. Realizing those reforms is the other half.
The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act included a clause that FORBID the government from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, a free market right enjoyed by private insurers and health care providers. The law was supported by every single Republican senator but one and by about half of the Democrats and was signed into law by Bush. Until the clause was repealed when the Democrats took control two years ago, the government had to pay whatever prices were set by pharmaceutical companies. The bill also established government-subsidized private health care supplement plans for Medicare recipients. Imagine that – Republicans passing legislation that is anti-free market and increases government spending. Who'd a thunk?
Sadly, I do not trust either major party to implement health care reform that is in the interests of the American people.
8:54 am on January 8th, 2011 10
Please support that claim with comparative data. Anecdotes are useful for illustrating concepts but do not prove or disprove generalities, so don't bother telling me about Aunt Hilda who had to wait 9 months to get knee replacement surgery in Toronto. Comparative statistics on treatment and mortality would be more useful.
8:59 am on January 8th, 2011 11
Jeff,
If you want to know how much of what you've just written comes -straight- out of private insurance companies' PR departments, read "Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans" By Wendell Potter.
Potter worked for both Cigna and Humana. He details just exactly how private insurers work, and how they have done their level best to make sure that they have the last word in any public healthcare debate. He also tells how much money is spent to achieve this, -all of which comes from money paid as premiums by the insured members.
If I wasn't retired, and on Tricare, I'd be paying about $13,500 a year in premiums, as I'm self-employed. And that's only if a private insurer would have me, with a lot of pre-existing conditions. And I forgot about the $5000-10,000 deductibles.
If we were able to go to a single-payer system, where the system had no compunction about negotiating with suppliers, then costs can only come down. It works this way in every country on earth that has a public system.
The VA, by the way, functions as a single-payer system, with the ability to bargain with suppliers. Medicare & Medicaid are forbidden to do this by laws passed in the last Bush administration.
When you think about private insurers, you are probably thinking about the old non-profit Blue Cross & Blue Shield regional insurers. You see, those were bought up by the big, listed companies years ago. The health insurance industry now works for the shareholders, not the insured members. And Wall Street punishes these companies whenever they spend more than 80% of what they take in in premiums on real healthcare.
So in this respect, you don't have a government bureaucrat making decisions on your healthcare, you have Wall Street, and we know how well they handled our banking for us.
But what has fascinated me about the local Tea Party people I know is just how much what they had to say about "Obamacare" was chapter and verse straight out of the insurance industry's playbook. Practically word-for-word.
So how is a national insurance system working out for South Korea? Are people dropping like flies for lack of decent care? Do families pay half their monthly income for participation? Are they euthanizing grandma when her care gets too expensive? I know several Korean-Americans who go back to Korea and get on the Korean system after their US private insurer drops their coverage.
And if you think that public healthcare sucks in countries that have it, and that our free market system is so much better, then why aren't we #1 for every metric of public health, be it infant mortality or life expectancy? We're not even in the top ten, by the way.
And if the free market solution is the way to go, then why not extend that thinking to police, fire, air traffic control, and the courts?
9:18 am on January 8th, 2011 12
I have only one minor correction to your brilliantly worded, factually accurate post, Burma Bob. We do not have free market health care. We have 'free market' health care. I think you get the distinction.
9:34 am on January 8th, 2011 13
Too bad the healthcare debate was not parceled out better. Everything that was good about healthcare was on the medical treatment side of the system. Everything bad was on the insurance provider side.
I saw something in the article that appeared to me to be misleading because I wrote something about it in the Forum here last month.
The AP article said:
The fact is it hasn't been approved yet.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 is currently approved by the House but not yet by the Senate.
Will this be another unfunded addition to an entitlement?
Many of us here, military, veterans and retirees, have been or are receiving government healthcare and covered by government insurance and, by all accounts, are fairly satisfied with it. So, I'm not sure where all the railing about the government's ability to manage healthcare is coming from.
To paraphrase a comment heard through the healthcare debate, "Keep the government out of my Tricare!"
10:20 am on January 8th, 2011 14
While we're doing our best to discourage people from serving in our military and disparage the best health care system in the world, I notice no one is apparently worried about cutting the benefits of illegal aliens who can just show up at any emergency room in the USA and be treated free of charge with no fear of even being reported to ICE…
I guess health insurance is only necessary for the law-abiding…
10:42 am on January 8th, 2011 15
Cutting healthcare for the military when you are fighting two wars? Reminds me of a movie that starred Keifer Sutherland.
1:14 pm on January 8th, 2011 16
Sonagi; You say you are not ambitious enough to do some research on how
our health care system compares with other countries. I think you are a tad
disingenuous when you say that. Your comments indicate you have been tuned
into these issues and are quite savvy about the topic. I am a Republican.
Bush was asleep at the wheel and downright irresponsible for these fiscal
issues. He wanted to give amnesty to illegals for God's sake! The elitist
repubs are as complicit the dems in putting us in the economic and societal
breakdown we are in now. Enter the tea party. WOW!! Fasten your seat belt.
There is hope and changes on the horizon.
We do need health reform and serious oversight of that industry. Get rid
of the lobbyist would be the first thing I would do (I know–in my dreams). Money talks, BS walks. "Aunt Hilda" is not an anomaly! That example is very significant issue regarding socialist health care, along
with those at the end of the "life cycle" being denied care. Google for
the stats. How hard can that be? Few clicks and you may have them if they
are around.
1:58 pm on January 8th, 2011 17
Bob Burma: First of all my friend you need a lesson in the basic role of
what the government's role in society is and what individual responsibility
is. The Purpose of government is to do the tings that we can not do for
ourselves such as POLICE, Military, FIRE DEPT, AIR TRAFFIC, COURTS. if you
can not grasp that, then you are a lost cause. Who is Wendall Potter? Other
than a guy that wrote a book. What is his agenda? Would it not be better
to watch C-Span, CNN, MSNBC or the top dog network Fox news channel. See
and hear the book writers debate and state their case. The pols. and pundits. Get Glenn Beck's books, watch his show. He challenges you to
check him out on his opinions. I follow this stuff to be able to make some
sort of objective decisions I can hang my hat on and present a reasonable
case for my opinion. Again I say, we need health care reform but government take over of society does not not work. What agency run by the
government is cost effective and efficient, not riddled with waste, fraud
and abuse. We are the strongest most respected nation on planet earth.
England, and the others are a basket case compared to us. Germany, England
and France have been mired in socialisim for decades. They have recently
elected conservatives and are trying reverse there old ways of the nanny
state that encourages citizens to be moochers and irresponsible. "Ask not
what your country can do for you, ask……
3:10 am on January 9th, 2011 18
Well, Jeff, you've told me where you get your information. So I should stop reading well-footnoted literature and start watching Fox News?
A public healthcare system does not in any way, shape, or form represent a "government takeover of society". That already happened with the Patriot Act, but I guess you missed it.
I did live in Vancouver for 5 years while I was working for a Canadian pharma company, so I do have some experience of healthcare in that system. It was not perfect, and doctors were limited in what therapies they could prescribe. But this was not always a bad thing. Patients could not demand the latest little purple pill they saw advertised on TV when all of the medical literature says that an older and cheaper pill is every bit as good.
But on the other hand, I never saw a line of pharma salesmen trying to get in to see my doctor, to convince him to prescribe his pill, instead of an older, tried & true (and off-patent) medicine. I know how decisions are made in Canada, and the pharma salesmen are not part of it. It is still what is called "evidence-based medicine". There is no such thing as an "off-label" prescription, which is what US pharma companies are constantly trying to get doctors to do.
I will say that Canada's healthcare system is variable in quality from province to province, with BC being on the low end. Alberta, thanks to all that oil money, is doing a bit better.
And the last time I checked, every 1st world country with a public healthcare system was still a representative democracy.
Yes, we pay taxes, and government does things for us we can't do for ourselves. But the last time I tried to do an appendectomy on myself, I made a hell of a mess in the kitchen. And word has gotten around about Burma Bob's vasectomies. Never had a repeat customer.
We are the only developed country that does not include healthcare as a public function, like police, fire, etc. We allowed the healthcare industry and the AMA, and PhRMA and the other lobbyists to dictate how healthcare will function.
But I would guess that you also might be a retiree, covered by Tricare, like myself. Would you back up what you say by giving that up and going out and paying for a private plan? I didn't think so.
The lack of public healthcare also hurts small and medium sized businesses, as well as big corporations. You see, they have to buy their employee insurance from the large insurers, and they (and their employees have to pay whatever the market will bear; this affects the bottom line, and makes American businesses that much less competitive than similar companies.
Case in point, the pension and healthcare obligations of the big automakers in America. These costs are constantly cited as a drag on their performance and continued viability. Their competitors in Korea, Germany, and France simply don't have to worry about this, because the costs associated are under more positive control.
To go back to Secretary Gates' point, he would simply like the retirees to start picking up a little more of the costs of Tricare. One of the memes out there was that DoD is a massive benefits provider that just occasionally manages to kill a bad guy.
4:22 am on January 9th, 2011 19
You're righ about one thing, Jeff. The data is available. I am willing to spend 20-30 minutes, an hour sifting through online content to find comparative public health markers for the US and other OECD countries. If I do this, and the data support the claim that Canada, France, and other OECD countries with single-payer systems do more with less money, then will you state in a comment on this thread that you were wrong and cease and desist from making false claims about the US having the best health care system in the world? If you refuse to do so, can GI Korea ban you? Is it a deal? I'm not going to waste my time searching for an compiling links if you're going to ignore the information and toss out distractors about illegals. I'll await your response.
5:26 am on January 9th, 2011 20
Sonagi, while you're doing your research, tell us the actual financial impact on America's healthcare of (1) under-employed lawyers (malpractice suits and resulting insurace costs) and (2) illegal aliens receiving "free" care.
If you think illegals are "just a distraction", you haven't been to an Emergency Room in a border state recently…
8:47 am on January 9th, 2011 21
SETNAFFA,
Damn good points.
1) A lot of doctors would be more amenable to healthcare reform if tort law reform was part of it. Doctors in private practice (and every hospital) have to factor in massive premiums paid for malpractice insurance. This is of course driven by the brigades of ambulance-chasing lawyers persuading clients to sue, and the juries that can award them massive damages. My brother in Houston paid $11 million last year to cover his medium-sized OB/GYN practice.
2) Until something is done to either round up and deport them, or give them a path to legal status, illegal aliens will -always- be with us. At any given time, the shadow population of illegals in my county can make up 30% of the total. If someone waved a magic wand and they all just disappeared, Whatcom county's agricultural economy would crash in short order.
The budget for indigent healthcare in WA state just took a massive hit, and the few chains of non-profit clinics that took care of illegals may be forced to close.
That having been said, if illegals are denied healthcare, they become what as known as a potential reservoir of infectious disease, especially if their kids are not getting vaccinated, and nobody is keeping an eye on tuberculosis and other communicable diseases. This is what *Public Health* is all about.
No illegal alien I have ever talked to decided to come here from Mexico for the healthcare. They are here to work and make money to remit home. The fact is that in Mexico, they have their own national health insurance plans: ISSTE, IMSS, and PEMEX for the oil industry. Combined, they take pretty good care of 52 million-odd Mexican citizens. They do it with slimmer resources because the system requires the drug companies and other suppliers to bid on tenders for everything. The "free market" part is that the suppliers actually have to be competitive on price. Pharma companies selling in Mexico don't have to have battalions of sales people, or spend a ton of money on advertising, -because the government is the only customer; they just need to be able to submit winning bids that don't lose them money.
And as funding for Social Security, medicare, and all of the other obligations for aging and retiring baby boomers is up in the air, the very thing we should be doing is to create the next wave of legal tax-payers who will be footing the bill for all of our entitlements. Who cares if they are brown, black, yellow, or off-white? All money is green.
9:07 am on January 9th, 2011 22
SONAGI #19 YES! It is a deal.
11:39 am on January 9th, 2011 23
Back in comment #7, Jeff wrote, "The socialized medical care in Canada, UK, France, Germany, is way inferior
to our system."
Below are links with comparisons of basic public health measures:
Infant mortality and life expectancy:
Canada 5.0 81.3
France 3.3 81.0
Germany 4.0 79.4
United Kingdom 4.7 79.9
United States 6.1 78.2
http://www.factmonster.com/world/statistics/infan…
Spending per person:
# 1 United States: 4,271
# 7 Germany: 2,697
# 8 France: 2,288
# 14 Canada: 1,939
# 18 United Kingdom: 1,675
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per…
Even taking into account minor differences in obesity levels and demographic make-up, it's amazing to see that Canada and the UK spend less than half of what we do per person yet achieve lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy. The UK is a good country to compare with because it also has a large population of illegal immigrants. Malpractice insurance and lawsuits certainly drive up the cost of health care in the US, but regardless of spending differences, the US ranks below other OECD countries with single-payer systems in two basic measures, infant mortality and life expectancy. What evidence is there to support the claim that these countries provide health care that is "way inferior" to what we receive in the US?
11:46 am on January 9th, 2011 24
Every single Republican senator voted for that fiscally irresponsible 2003 health care bill but only half of the Democrats in the Senate did, so I guess all Republican senators are elitist, or at least the ones that were in office 7 years ago.
12:34 pm on January 9th, 2011 25
Burma Bob: I agree with your comments on #21. Now#18. Glad you see I get my
info from various sources although the one I am aligned with is Fox News.
No, continue to read what you are but do as I do and read the op-eds in the
papers etc. of the Socialist and Conservatives. As they say in the Army, it
is important to know where the opponents are coming from. Did you follow up
on those "footnotes" in that guys book? No. Why do you leap to the conclusion that I think socialized health care in itself will result in a
government take over. It is along with the other stuff Obama is trying to
push thru. You are against the Patriot Act? 9/11, the war on terrorism that
we have going on now, does that not justify that act. It is not eaves
dropping on US citizens. It is electronic monitoring of overseas trans-
missions to the USA from known countries overseas that are where the usual
suspects are from. There is a profile, clear and distinct. The computers
as I understand it, key on certain words etc. I suppose you think that
"water boarding" torture on par with what the Muslim terrorist do. Hope
you do not. You equate folks in Canada wanting the latest pill and being
denied medical procedures/waiting for procedures for months? That is what
you said. You say the treatment varies from province to province in Canada. In our system, we have choices. Please do not say "Not Everyone".
I know the system is not perfect. Every first world country a representative democracy? Once they have you dependent on government
instituted programs and control the hearts and minds, dependency, those
in power own you. The welfare mentality sets in. After I retired from the
Army, I was a mail man. When someone went on the dole and got food stamps
they were a bit embarrassed when they had to sign for them. Six months or
so later, if they did not get them when they were expected to they got in
your face big time, "If I do not get those stamps tomorrow, Heads are going to roll". The entitlement mentality sets in. They are from then on
voting for the folks that perpetuate those programs, the dems. and that
is job security for the liberals. Bob, where in hell do you get the idea
that if were not for the government, you would have to operate on yourself? Not quite sure what your point is. If it is that someone would
have to if they lacked insurance, that is absolutely not true. Anyone that
walks into a hospital without insurance MUST be taken care of. That is the
law. Small and medium sized businesses have managed okay with health care.
Are you going to hit me with the "I know a company…" line? Taking a
single or example and making the leap that it applies big picture that you
have know way of knowing? There are changes that are necessary as I stated
in previously. Small/medium businesses are the backbone of our economy,
IN MY OPINION (stress that Bob because I do not think of my comments to be
be impericle facts). I am a retired Army E-8, the last five years a
Recruiter/Re-up guy, Vietnam vet (Bronze Star w/o the V device). Love the
Army, think of it every day at some point. Had 24 yrs in. Used my civilian
and Tricare system. Retired from the civilian job, stopped the civ. insure. Like Tricare. The $460@year is nothing, peanuts to me. Double that
and still a bargain to me. That is a socialized medical system. They are
very busy here (Wash DC area). Go in without an appt. and you have to wait
what seems to be forever. Problem is people are showing up for colds and
minor stuff that would never do that for if they had to pay a co-payment.
I remember that a guy I was trying to get to re-up years ago made the
comment when I went into the benefits song and dance, told me, ya, how long will they last? I was in my heart of hearts sure they would always be
there especially the big ones, health, dental care. Now have to pony-up
the $$. Again not a big deal to me but I was wrong in thinking the military would always continue those things as it was way back when. I will not change your mind to my way of thinking. Never have bought a liberal over to the "right" side. Just like to think somewhere down the road they might. Made a pledge to SONAGI#19 in my #22. Will honor that
pledge if he can back up his assertions. I am an honorable person to be
sure. That would mean I exile myself from this venue. Will not be able
to have another go at you. Enjoy hearing your opinions. Thanks.
12:54 pm on January 9th, 2011 26
Burma Bob,
"If someone waved a magic wand and they all just disappeared, Whatcom county’s agricultural economy would crash in short order."
…unless welfare was cut at the same time and it became less profitable to stay home watching daytime TV on your rent-to-own flatscreen than "doing jobs Americans won't do".
12:56 pm on January 9th, 2011 27
#25, Thanks for your service Jeff. Also thank you for the comment above. Well said.
1:04 pm on January 9th, 2011 28
I just did. Took me about five minutes. No need to exile yourself. If you look at the conditions of my challenge in #19, I merely asked you to retract your unproven claim in #7. If you refused, then I asked if GI Korea could ban you. You're welcome to counter with other relevant data.
1:30 pm on January 9th, 2011 29
Oh, for objectivity, for clarity in all this health care debate! Data, the answer is in the data. Gee, what did MacNamara and the "Best and the Brightest" do with all that data they collected in the Vietnam War? And human beings are so much smarter now?
Figures don't lie, but there are liars who do figure. Not throwing stones at anyone here, just meaning statistics drawn from any particular source can be presented by a particular person, party, group or special interest in such a way as to be quite subjective, versus objective.
Simple quantitative analysis is just so much blather, without any qualitative analysis to accompany it and some transparency to the measures used for such assessment. The numbers in #23 alone are unimpressive. One might be accused of skating on thin ice to be able to offer much meaningful interpretation based on a number. For what time period are the figures given? What is the trend, upward, downward or static in a given period preceding the result for that particular statistic? What is the assessment as to causal factors why? Etc,., etc., etc…
1:49 pm on January 9th, 2011 30
For SONAGI and Jeff-Both have valid and interesting comments but as Pops says above stats are just that and can be interpreted differently. I for one think that infant mortality rates are impacted as much by the poverty rate as anything else. I've read that Canada's poverty rate for children is about 2% while the US its over 18%, could that explain the higher US number? (I know how you are a stickler for links but it was something I read earlier this year for an assignment and don't remember where I read it)
I hope Jeff continues with his comments and I truly do enjoy reading some of Sonagi comments, it at least makes me think.
2:21 pm on January 9th, 2011 31
There is a pretty good report by PBS Frontline: Sick Around America. You can watch the video online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroun…
A common theme with those developed democracies which have universal healthcare was higher taxes, government controlled prices, mandatory insurance, insurance companies were non-profits, medical staff which were government employees, and government run hospitals.
Although it may work for them, the US constitution strictly limits the power of the government. An amendment would have to be introduced for universal healthcare. In addition, our free market economy is based upon profit. Taking the profit out of healthcare would have a devastating impact on the economy but agree something needs to be done.
9:07 pm on January 9th, 2011 32
The poverty rate for children in Canada is 12%. The UK's child poverty rate of 22% is very close to the US' 25%.
There are a number of factors that impact both infant mortality and life expectancy. Anyone who doesn't think those stats mean anything is welcome to provide their own relevant and verifiable information to support the claim that we have the best health care in the world.
1:16 am on January 10th, 2011 33
Bubba#31 Great comment. The Constitution is monumentally significant to
the foundation of the USA that propelled us into our unique exceptional
status. It is outright shameful in my opinion that the vast majority of the
citizens are not aware of this fact. I include myself in this category. I am
trying to make up for my ignorance now. I never went to High School so I do
not know what emphasis is put on educating the students in this regard. My
intuition tells me not much. The Academics tend to be idealist and very "PC". I thank Obama for motivating me and others to get educated on the
history of the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. He is
making a mockery of it. Thanks Bubba, for bringing up the point of the
Constitution aspect.
1:26 am on January 10th, 2011 34
POPS #29 You taught me something! What you said is an eye opener for me, a
revelation of sorts. Appreciate it.
4:27 am on January 10th, 2011 35
#34, Yer welcome. Just trying to set context for discussion. Speaking of that, "Best health care in the world" depends on the measure(s) one uses. Not so easy to assess any complex system and provide any sweeping judgment, answer or evaluation. In and of itself, poverty rate data is more meaningless data. On what basis is a poverty level established in a given country? In western countries, people in poverty still live like rich people compared to third world countries. If one doesn't keep up with the Joneses in conspicuous consumption, does that mean they are deprived, and live at poverty level?
5:52 am on January 10th, 2011 36
POPS#35 I AM TAKING NOTES POPS!! Your introspection beats the heck out of
my ability to do same. What you said makes me think of my days as a mailman. Delivered to government subsidized housing development. All the
tenants are on the dole. POPS, they had cars, TV's, hot and cold running
water, cell phones up the wazoo. "Free" housing and food. For some reason
they seem to smoke and buy lottery tickets a lot at the local 7/11. I
brought this up to the store manager, a Korean I was friends with (I speak some Korean and wife is Korean). I have never smoked or drank bee and was surprised the residents spent the money to do that. He told me
a fair amount of them come in once a week or so and buy a couple of cartons of cigarettes
and beer. Spend $70. I was quite surprised that stuff
cost so much. The reason I bring this is the point you make about poor
people in other countries would feel as though the hit the lottery to live
in so called poverty in this country!! Oh, they get complete medical
benefits–medicaid.
before I could open the truck door. Piss in the hallways,
5:52 am on January 10th, 2011 37
Pops, you are a very enlightened person. Having spent some time in a few of those third world countries, I understand yer meaning.
You make much more sense than Sonagi.
6:04 pm on January 10th, 2011 38
Folks, thank you for any kind remarks, and I know you know what I am talking about from what experience you've had as well. Life is a lifelong learning process, but I've had too many of those college edumacated types without one iota of real world experience beyond the campus, textbook and classroom talk down to me over the years. That includes many elected public officials. Too many of those kind out of touch with reality. Like Popeye said, "…that's all I can stands, cuz I can't stands n'more!" Odds are fair to good that they can learn something useful too from the average Joe and Jane Citizen, if they'll listen and reflect…
6:33 pm on January 10th, 2011 39
The problem with free market + health-care resides in the accurate price assessment of free market theory. The value of something is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it not by any other measure. Producing something at a cost that is under the market valuation for it is known as making a profit. The market value of things are based on many variables with the biggest one being supply / demand. Using free market principles I then ask everyone, how much is your health worth to you? $100, $200, $500, $10,000, $100,000, or all of your money? If this line of reasoning is taken to its conclusion the question is then asked, how much is your life worth to you? This isn't like fire / automobile insurance, where the loss of said object is merely a monetary concern.
Current health insurance companies serve as gatekeepers to health-care, they are the ferryman you must pay to maintain your good health and to live. If you don't pay them you risk suffering from poor health and losing your life. They know they have this advantage over you and price their services accordingly. Which is to say them will attempt to extract every penny they can out of you.
The other problem with health insurance companies is the free-market concept of risk vs reward vs profitability. For every $1000 you pay them, they must only provide you with $999 in service to realize a $1 profit. In reality that $1 isn't going to be enough to cover administration expenses, executive compensation, and provide for share-holder value and growth. The ratio is more like $1000 to $500 or less, at this level it would be economically wiser for the consumer to take their money and provide their own health-care. The health care companies have realized this and endeavored to make this as difficult as possible.
I believe health-care providers should be free-market based and deregulated as much as is economically possible. Natural free-market competition without government favoritism will bring the price down. Health-care insurance companies should be heavily regulated to the point they are *forced* to provide the care they promised. When a computer system is programmed to automatically flag and audit a patients records upon finding anything related to cancer in an attempt to cease service to the patient is morally and ethically wrong. The patient entered into a contract with a business entity (the insurance company) to provide cover the costs of health-care for a set price, any attempt by the insurance company to violate that contract should result in forfeiture of a significant amount of money (far beyond what the medical costs involved are). Multiple violations should result in the immediate forced closer of that company.
Another thing that should be fixed is the concept of some insurance company being required to pay all the health care costs, they is utter and complete BS. Health-insurance should be identical to other insurance's in this regard, they would cover a specified set of conditions for a set fee. Common check-ups / exams / procedures should be done by lower licensed professionals and for a small free. One of the worst things to ever happen in the USA is the requirement for a MD to do ~anything~ health care wise. A nurse or even PA can easily diagnose and treat colds / flu / minor illness, they don't need a MD for that. It does nothing but inflate the price of health-care by limiting the supply side of the equation.