If Obamacare is struck down...

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Personally I don't want government health care to even wash my jock strap. But one of the questions is, does health care need fixing?

Of course it does.

However, conservatives are opposed to absolutely anything associated with the president. Look at "green energy" as an example. They claim it is a fraud and an example of “crony capitalism”. The Solyndra debacle is touted as the prime example.

But this was a Republican program.

Oops.

The program was authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 a bill introduced by two conservatives, Richard Pombo and William Thomas. It passed the Republican controlled House 249 to 183 and passed the Republican controlled senate 85 to 12, clearly with the support of the majority of the Republicans. George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

In October of '07 Secretary of Energy Bodman released the regulations to enable this law. At the DOE press conference, they invited 16 project sponsors, who submitted pre-applications in 2006, to submit now legal applications for loan guarantees. Guess who was included in that invitation - Solyndra. Their application stated "California is the proposed location for this project, which plans to manufacture highly efficient thin-film photovoltaic modules.”

It then seems that Republicans supported “Green Energy” before they were against it. The program of loan guarantees that gave money to Solyndra was a Republican project, they were invited to participate by the Bush Administration. President Obama’s administration inherited the program and Solyndra’s participation from the the Bush administration and republican controlled congress.

Now conservatives are willing to destroy their own program to attack Obama.

The same can now be said with the PPACA. As I already stated, PPACA is a conservative health care solution, drafted by the Heritage Foundation and first enacted by the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. But now conservatives are attacking their own creation in the hopes of defeating President Obama.

As you can see even here on this forum, there is no limit to the number of their own kids republicans will eat to thwart Obama...

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Of course it does.

However, conservatives are opposed to absolutely anything associated with the president. Look at "green energy" as an example. They claim it is a fraud and an example of “crony capitalism”. The Solyndra debacle is touted as the prime example.

But this was a Republican program.

Oops.

The program was authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 a bill introduced by two conservatives, Richard Pombo and William Thomas. It passed the Republican controlled House 249 to 183 and passed the Republican controlled senate 85 to 12, clearly with the support of the majority of the Republicans. George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

In October of '07 Secretary of Energy Bodman released the regulations to enable this law. At the DOE press conference, they invited 16 project sponsors, who submitted pre-applications in 2006, to submit now legal applications for loan guarantees. Guess who was included in that invitation - Solyndra. Their application stated "California is the proposed location for this project, which plans to manufacture highly efficient thin-film photovoltaic modules.”

It then seems that Republicans supported “Green Energy” before they were against it. The program of loan guarantees that gave money to Solyndra was a Republican project, they were invited to participate by the Bush Administration. President Obama’s administration inherited the program and Solyndra’s participation from the the Bush administration and republican controlled congress.

Now conservatives are willing to destroy their own program to attack Obama.

The same can now be said with the PPACA. As I already stated, PPACA is a conservative health care solution, drafted by the Heritage Foundation and first enacted by the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. But now conservatives are attacking their own creation in the hopes of defeating President Obama.

As you can see even here on this forum, there is no limit to the number of their own kids republicans will eat to thwart Obama...

Joe, please keep your feckin' politics out of this. Everyone else has. I made it very clear in my initial post that I wasn't interested in the politics of the matter. There are lots of things that can be discussed--and solved--witout bringing politics, religion, or race into it.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Here are the facts: Medical care cost is rising much faster each year than income and inflation, about 6% a year. Medical insurance premiums rose 113% from 2001-2011. I know every one of you has his/her reasons as to why these costs rose so much, and those reasons are not likely to be fixed (illegals, unneccesary tests, free use of ERs, etc.) by our Government anytime soon, if ever.

I think we're looking at a fundamental difference in the future on how to make medical care available to everyone and how we pay for it...without curing the existing problems of illegals, unneccesary tests, etc. To me, that's the reality of it.

That sounds like I'm in favor of socialized medicine. I'm not. But...do you agree that something has to be done?

Of course something needs to be done.

1. Health insurance companies should all be rechartered as mutual companies owned only by those covered. No stockholders, no profit motive and ONLY exist as a means to pay for health care.

2. It should be illegal for ANY financial company to be horizontally integrated. Banks should serve customers through personal and business loans and checking and savings accounts. Period.
Mortgage banks should be unbundled. Insurance should be unbundled, stock brokerages should be unbundled.
Doing this would increase jobs, ease regulatory authority and make it easier for those regulatory agencies to oversee the specifics of the vertical markets.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

Of course something needs to be done.

1. Health insurance companies should all be rechartered as mutual companies owned only by those covered. No stockholders, no profit motive and ONLY exist as a means to pay for health care.

2. It should be illegal for ANY financial company to be horizontally integrated. Banks should serve customers through personal and business loans and checking and savings accounts. Period.
Mortgage banks should be unbundled. Insurance should be unbundled, stock brokerages should be unbundled.
Doing this would increase jobs, ease regulatory authority and make it easier for those regulatory agencies to oversee the specifics of the vertical markets.

Interesting. Since you're talking over my head, please give me some specifics. How does this save health care cost, for example?

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Since you're talking over my head

Jesus, wait until that needle-dick Harry shows up.

[VITE1]

Here is a sensible approach.
How to Cure Health Care | Hoover Institution


Please note Milton Friedman was lambasted in the 1970's for stating the Medicaid and Medicare would ruin the American Health care system and his statements came true.

This solution is currently being used in Singapore where HC costs are significantly lower and with quality of life and length of life equivalent if not better than Europe and the USA.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Jesus, wait until that needle-dick Harry shows up.

Yep, I've been waiting on that. Harry is a virtual friend of mine, and I like him. Do I understand what he says sometimes? Hell, no!

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Joe, please keep your feckin' politics out of this. Everyone else has. I made it very clear in my initial post that I wasn't interested in the politics of the matter. There are lots of things that can be discussed--and solved--witout bringing politics, religion, or race into it.

Sorry, Spence, but I am not comprehending how you start a thread with the word Obamacare in it and not expect politics to be discussed.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Interesting. Since you're talking over my head, please give me some specifics. How does this save health care cost, for example?

Well, if you take the financial incentive for management out of insurance and make it solely a service industry that serves only the membership there is an efficiency motive, rather than profit motive.

Just eliminating the profit structure should create an immediate 4% savings at the very top.

Health care will always be expensive. We want the very best care - My wife has had more MRIs than I can count - but those things aren't cheap. But she can walk - 25 years ago, she'd be crippled.

Big Pharma requires huge R&D, tremendous investment in meeting regulatory hurdles and then, when the US Govt declares that these medications are safe to be used, THAT should indemnify then pharma company.

If these companies go through these procedures and are then subjected to lawsuit after lawsuit because of side effects or after effects, then what good is wasting the time and money seeking FDA approval?


The other elements - financial institutions, mortgage companies and insurance carriers is part of another rant on How Things Ought To Be on Planet Bucky.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by MrPeabody

Sorry, Spence, but I am not comprehending how you start a thread with the word Obamacare in it and not expect politics to be discussed.

I expected peeps would actually read my post and easily see it was non-political. You wanna come up with a better thread title if you think it isn't clear?

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

I expected peeps would actually read my post and easily see it was non-political. You wanna come up with a better thread title if you think it isn't clear?

You could have called the bill by it's real name, The Affordable Care Act.

Even then, you're not going to have a discussion about a law that was voted on right down party lines without fairly expecting politics to enter the picture. That would be like starting a thread called Romney vs Obama For President and asking people to not bring politics into it. Just my .02 worth.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

Well, if you take the financial incentive for management out of insurance and make it solely a service industry that serves only the membership there is an efficiency motive, rather than profit motive.

Just eliminating the profit structure should create an immediate 4% savings at the very top.

Health care will always be expensive. We want the very best care - My wife has had more MRIs than I can count - but those things aren't cheap. But she can walk - 25 years ago, she'd be crippled.

Big Pharma requires huge R&D, tremendous investment in meeting regulatory hurdles and then, when the US Govt declares that these medications are safe to be used, THAT should indemnify then pharma company.

If these companies go through these procedures and are then subjected to lawsuit after lawsuit because of side effects or after effects, then what good is wasting the time and money seeking FDA approval?


The other elements - financial institutions, mortgage companies and insurance carriers is part of another rant on How Things Ought To Be on Planet Bucky.

Seems like that should be better addressed in the Judiciary. Congress can always legislate that outcome. Your other points I agree with completely.

[boracayjohnny]

I'll give just a small insight into government run health care. I've used the military system before. In using the military health care system, there is no suing for malpractice. With that said, there once was a dentist at Hill AFB, Utah with the last name of Hope. My buddy nicknamed him Dr No Hope. It's both funny and a true representation of some of the shit stories I've seen and heard about. However, there are many professionals that really care and try to do their best. So, my point is the government can and will have quacks with no recourse for action.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by MrPeabody

You could have called the bill by it's real name, The Affordable Care Act.

Fixt.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Seems like that should be better addressed in the Judiciary. Congress can always legislate that outcome. Your other points I agree with completely.

I have never understood why drugs that are needed and can save lives, cut illnesses and generally improve the lives of thousands are held up in trials, proving tests and federal paperwork, and then when they are released they become fair game for litigation.

Lets do one or the other. If we are going to allow lawyers to get wealthy putting class action suits into the courts for everything from Vioxx or breast implants, then why go to the expense and trouble of waiting out the testing and certification process. What purpose does that serve?

Either put the onus on the Drug Companies to put out teased drugs and face the legal gauntlet or make the Federal process mean something.

[VatorMan]

TORT REFORM !! Get the fukkin lawyers OUT of medical malpractice. The #1 reason health care costs and EVERYTHING else is out of control are the goddamned lawyers.

[CP]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Republicans have said that they want to dump the whole law and do something about health care in increments. I don't want to get into politics in this thread (so please don't) because it's not about politics. My question is this: What (if anything) should be done to reform health care in this Country?

And...do any of you have personal experience with government-run health care? Call it socialized medicine if you want. I'd like to hear from our Canuckistanians and also from CuzzinJack in England and any others who have it. What do you think of it? Pros? Cons? Personal experience can include things that have happened to your friends or relatives under such health care.

1. tort reform
2. be able to buy health insurance from any company in any state
3. make people buy their own health insurance instead of being paid for by the company you work for. That is, give the employee the after tax premium or a set amount and he buys what he needs.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Oh and last but not least, start deporting illegals, as they are a major drain on our health care system.

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

Medical professionals shouldn't have to play dodge the lawyer, and run tests/do treatments based solely on the fear of being sued.

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Can't deny what you say. But should we all be under a mandated system to pay for such people? After all, everyone will be covered.

Originally Posted by Blue 92

Let INS pickup them up as they leave the ER and provide a ride to the border.

Together would most likely resolve about 75% of the problem.

Originally Posted by lspencer534

I think we're looking at a fundamental difference in the future on how to make medical care available to everyone and how we pay for it...without curing the existing problems of illegals, unneccesary tests, etc. To me, that's the reality of it.

Before my post.

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Joe, please keep your feckin' politics out of this. Everyone else has. I made it very clear in my initial post that I wasn't interested in the politics of the matter. There are lots of things that can be discussed--and solved--witout bringing politics, religion, or race into it.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Before my post.

And that's your come-back? All I see is shallowness.

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Before my post.

Phil,
Can you honestly say that illegals are NOT a major drain on our country's resources?