So...what do "conservatives" think should be done about health care?

[teamnelson]

scootrd, it appears as though the government is the cudgel in the hands of the people to beat up the HC system in Canada. Do they have a presupposition that the HC system would be corrupt without it? The ombudsman sounds like a patient's advocate. What I'm wondering is if the HC system itself has any defense against the government insurance provider? If not, then the HC system is forced to provide which ever level of care is dictated by how much the government will pay. And the government regulates drug approvals, trials and tests, etc. Have Canadians been traumatized by their HC system in the past?

The reason why I ask is because I'm not convinced that the problem with US HC is because of all those greedy doctors that if we didn't have the government on our side would just fleece the public gleefully (alongside Big Oil, and the Haliburton). I don't see a need for my government to become my cudgel to beat the free market HC system into shape. Quality of care seems pretty good for us, and you're right, we're spending more than we used to. Is the assumption that the rising costs are artificial? Could it be we're seeking care more frequently than we used to, perhaps as a result of increased access? aging population? less healthy lifestyles? dare I say, less self-sufficient lifestyles, i.e. we need more care than we really ought? The rising costs cannot be entirely laid at the feet of the HC system proper. I'd like to see those costs tied to consumption so that those who demand less from the HC system, spend less - in order to reward those that have chosen a healthier path as much as is in their control.

[Junior1942]

TN hit a nail on the head.  Most Americans are walking hospital bills.  Many smoke cigarettes in a seemingly suicidal stupor.  Look at our kids!  Overweight and lethargic--almost all of them!   They sit around and watch TV, and if you see one of today's kids that kid has a sugared soft drink in his or her hands.  There's the cause of overweight kids--thousands upon thousands of calories in the form of gallons of sugared soft drinks + hours in front of a TV. An overweight kid is diabetes or heart disease in the making.  And probably an average lifetime hospital bill of over a million dollars.

[gypsyman]

There are so many things wrong with our health care in this country, and yet it's still head and shoulders above the rest.
Tort reform would help, million dollar lawsuits have driven insurance rates so far up, many doctors move around to different state's, just trying to stay in business. Insurance company's dictate many times what tests and procedure's will be payed for, and what will not. Because of so many that don't have insurance, hospitals charge $3-$5 for a single asprin, to make up for the the ones that don't.
Case in point, a friend of mine,whose wife needed heart surgery. While at the hospital, discussing the options, they told the hospital personell, that they didn't have insurance. They had quoted a price of $90,000 and up. When the hospital personell heard that, went out and talked with an administrator. Came back and the price dropped to $25,000, with an $8,000 payment up front, and a payment plan they could afford. Funny how price dropped by 2/3rds when there was no insurance company involved. gypsyman

[scootrd]

Scootrd....l

..alot of people think America has an HC System...it does not. It is a 'HC market'. Other industrialized have a system. There may be some geewhiz procedures and rock star surgeons but stats show us way down the lists on results. Besides Lasix surgeory, hip and knee replacements, insulin pumps, etc., etc. were developed in other countries. Good luck getting people to understand the difference between  "HC System" and "Health Care".  Good luck getting people to understand that HC costs % GDP is projected to go north of 20% by 2017, which will impinge on America's pasttime for foreign wars..

This is the distinction Billy just doesn't seem to get ...No one is question the excellent doctors and hospitals we have . The problem is access , Admin overhead costs and the fact the spending on HC the way it is administered today through a piece meal non system of rubber bands and paperclip no-process is eating us alive as it relates to spending and GDP. It is unsustainable , all agree , so it's time for new ideas. I happen to like the pay to play or be taxed option, Some may like just expanding Medicaid/Medicare... others may like something else -  single payer , national health , public option , whatever ... I'm open for suggestions.

But to bury ones head in the sand like Billy is doing is not going to solve the issue of how can we implement more effective HC SYSTEM (Billy I emphasize system here just for you) to reduce costs and lower premiums , and reach a broader segment of our population.

Billy keeps trying to drive the conversation back to Quality of care . No one is questioning the quality of care "Some" in America have access too. But until we have a bigger pool of folks contributing into a real SYSTEM costs are going to continue to escalate and Billy and all will continue to pick up the bill for the uninsured and those that receive "Free" care (nothing is free to the taxpayer) on the backs of those that pay into the system and play by the rules.

And Billy if you just cant differentiate between receiving HC and and the no -system that is in place that allows you to receive that care now while continuing to swallow up more and more of ones paycheck as our population increases  along with the overhead costs to provide that level of care you love so much that continues to increase proportionality .. well then I just give up on ya.  Perhaps you will see the light when your premiums quadruple in the next few years.

It doesn't take all kinds...There Just are

[Junior1942]

>Medical bills prompt more than 60% of all U.S. bankruptcies according to CNN.  Bankruptcies attributed to medical bills increased by nearly 50% from 2001 to 2007.  **75% of all people who went bankrupt because of medical bills had health insurance.

Just wanted to insure--pun intended--that you guys read TM7's post.

[scootrd]

>Medical bills prompt more than 60% of all U.S. bankruptcies according to CNN.  Bankruptcies attributed to medical bills increased by nearly 50% from 2001 to 2007.  **75% of all people who went bankrupt because of medical bills had health insurance.

Just wanted to insure--pun intended--that you guys read TM7's post.

Some will, 

Most wont,  It's too lengthy for 'em,  and not a concise Drive by media cookie cutter headline or snide remark.

[billy_56081]

I don't want the standards of my health care lowered so the have nots get the same health care I do. Check this I pay for my health care why don't you lazy parasites do the same. Or better yet move to one of these utopian societies you keep claiming are so great and quit trying to destroy my country.

[Junior1942]

I don't want the standards of my health care lowered so the have nots get the same health care I do. Check this I pay for my health care why don't you lazy parasites do the same. Or better yet move to one of these utopian societies you keep claiming are so great and quit trying to destroy my country.

So you've got about $500,000 cash for a hospital stay for you or yours?

[teamnelson]

TM7, also in your post was buried this little gem

**The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized, developed country in the world that does not offer health care to all of its citizens.

By offer do you mean fund, give or direct tax revenue into the provision thereof? Just want to make sure I understand where we are falling short. I do believe HC is offered, as in access is not restricted, to any of our citizens, or non-citizens for that matter. Who is being turned away from care?

TNel...
..What is the purpose of government...??
...Is HC a privilege or a right..??
...Is government permitted to accomplish what citizens cannot accomplish on their own when it comes to the direct general benefit of The People..??....or is that only permissible thru intermediary special or elite authorities..??

I don't believe HC is a fundamental human right established by natural law and protected by our Constitution. Nor do I believe it is part of our deontological system of ethics from which our morals, and many laws, spring.

The purpose of government is not to protect me from myself or even Divine Acts; who is the agressor in cancer, who is wanting to take my life through cancer, from whom should the government protect me? God? Marlboro? Little Debbies? What about accidental injury? Where do you draw the line? What is a reasonable limit to government assurance that my right to life is protected? Should the families of the 4 amish children who drowned in a river sue the government for failure to provide them life-saving HC?

When I was self-insured through a collective HC insurance program at a 501(c), we were incentivized to lose weight, eat healthy, etc. because it directly impacted our shared HC costs. Government HC is essentially the same model writ large - we would be self-insured as the actual costs of HC would come out of our collective pockets. As manager of those funds, the government is forced to deal with fixed income, fixed costs of care and rising demands of care. They will have no option but to either deny care to some, or require lifestyle changes to bring costs down. Or force HC providers to work for lower and lower wages, which always impacts quality as documented by every single industry that's done it. Or continue to drive up the debt ceiling.

[DDZ]

After reading TM's post, are we expected to believe the propaganda released from a United Nations agency? I'm sure the UN would love to see the US move to an all government run HC system. So I'm sure they didn't fix any data to end up with results that fit their agenda.

Yeah, lets just forget American exceptionalism, and do what other countries are doing. Just follow suit and everything will be just fine. Then we could all be just one big happy family, just like the UN wants us to be.   

[billy_56081]

Yeah I get a kick out of old TMs posts. He rants and raves to a point of nauseam on how evil corrupt and conspiratorial the government of the United States is and then out of the other side of his mouth he wants these same evil corrupt conspiratorial folks in charge of his health care. I'm thinking he likes causing arguments for arguments sake. So TM is the UN also a fine non biased source for information too?   

[Lost Farmboy]

The Canadian model won't work here, because we are some of the sickest people on earth.  Only starving people in third world countries are sicker than us.

We have more cancer, heart disease, autism, diabetes and autoimmune diseases than any body else.  These would break the bank.  As if it wasn't broke already.

Every time a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, we have a new disease.  Restless legs syndrome, ADD, ADHD and ED all became diseases when dangerous drugs were developed to treat them.

If we want real healthcare reform we need to find the truth and get Skull and Bones out of medicine.

[jimster]

Maybe the root of the problem is people thinking the United states is wealthy, when in fact we are trillions in debt.  Same goes for the states.
Getting people to realize there is no money seems to be a chore.  Reality is there is no money, there is only debt, but nobody can understand such a simple thing.  The Feds don't get it, the unions don't get it, many people don't get it.  Only way they get it is when their cities turn to rubble, then there are a million pointing fingers on who caused it, but even after the cities turn to rubble and people leave, they still don't get it and try the same methods over and over someplace else with the same results, over and over again. 

We can't afford health care legislation that is written by these same people because they don't get it.  So we are much better off not doing anything until we can get a whole new bunch of people to write legislation, and maybe we can't even do that while we are in debt.  Maybe we need a whole new bunch of people that thinks differently for a few years before we can do any kind of health care. If we simply shut down government for a few years things would get better just from that, bad as that sounds, it would stop spending and taxing and funneling money to unions who send it back to elect the same dolts, to give them more money that's not there.

Sometimes the simplest things are beyond comprehension, like being in debt and having no money and not being able to legislate anything that works. Stop sepnding, stop legislating, that in itself would be better without doing anything else at all.

You just tell the American people the truth, we are broke and have been stupid and wish not to try anything for a while to see how that goes.

I'm for doing nothing...for a real long time.  Don't worry...it won't hurt near as bad as what we have done already. 

 

[45-70.gov]

The Canadian model won't work here, because we are some of the sickest people on earth.  Only starving people in third world countries are sicker than us.

We have more cancer, heart disease, autism, diabetes and autoimmune diseases than any body else.  These would break the bank.  As if it wasn't broke already.

Every time a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, we have a new disease.  Restless legs syndrome, ADD, ADHD and ED all became diseases when dangerous drugs were developed to treat them.

If we want real healthcare reform we need to find the truth and get Skull and Bones out of medicine.

we have more sick  people
because we keep them alive longer

[Lost Farmboy]

How much longer are children living that 1 in 150 have autism?  In the 70's it was 1 in 2000.  In the Amish community only adopted children have autism.

[teamnelson]

Okay,,,most of the world, indeed the industrailized and Christian world believes it a fundamental human inalienable right to be healthy

I would love to hear the ethical framework and moral development behind that view, if in fact that it is what they believe. I'm presently teaching a college freshman Intro to Ethics course in my off time, and this would be interesting to study. Believe me, I have studied the bioethics practiced in the countries you are referring to (Christian?) and none of their ethicists would phrase it the way you did; only their politicians will. Most of their ethicists are supportive of euthanasia and abortion. But if you have a source, I'd be happy to read it.

How then does the government protect my inalienable right to be healthy? If what you claim is true, then nothing harmful to my health should be permitted in my presence by law, and any failure of them to protect my health is a violation of my rights. I think I'm going to sue my co-workers for violating my fundamental human right to be healthy; they coughed in my office, and now I'm feeling a little sick.

[DDZ]

So, because I dismiss facts and figures collected from a group of United Nations socialists, I'm part of the problem. This is the reason I see most of your arguments as meaningless.

[billy_56081]

I'm still wondering about why TM who thinks the government is conspiring to control every thing in his life, would want this same government running his healthcare? Call it common sense, that don't make sense to me.

[billy_56081]

I still say you socialists who are trying to ruin my great health care should move to one of your socialist Utopian societies. Quit trying to ruin my country. TM you make no seance at all. I am starting to think you just post crap to start an argument. No common sence what so ever.

[Cabin4]

I'm still wondering about why TM who thinks the government is conspiring to control every thing in his life, would want this same government running his healthcare? Call it common sense, that don't make sense to me.

.
Ridiculous statement. Various governments ard the globe have addressed their HC problems without ruination of their GDP. Ours can, too...if we make them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TNel....

Incidently, our nation has a history of Public Health governmnet mandated, quite socialized....by the Framers themselves...I should think the Framers would know what is Constitutional or not.

In July of 1798, Congress passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman," which was signed by President Adams. That law authorized the creation of a government operated system of marine hospitals and mandated that laboring merchant marine sailors pay a tax to support it. This was the first socialized, tax supported, HC SYSTEM in the USA...set up by the Framers themselves...

http://www.common-place.org/vol-09/no-01/rao/

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/founding_fathers_favored_gover.html


..TM7
.

TM, what capacity were these seaman serving in and who was thier employer at the time?

[scootrd]

C4: 

TM, what capacity were these seaman serving in and who was thier employer at the time?

Privately employeed in merchant marine shipping....a cost was provided thru tax. Read the links..quite interesting.

The Government of the Framers saw a problem and saw fit to provide a solution to derive a benefit...to the nation as well as to the individuals concerned....without alot of fanfare and abstractualizing.

..TM7
.

+1 I also posted on this before , and there is another instance in our American history regarding the Commerce clause.

[jimster]

Various governments ard the globe have addressed their HC problems without ruination of their GDP. Ours can, too...if we make them.

I think this is a false statement, I can't find many governments ard the globe that are not broke, not taking our money, or have a HC system running in the black. 

My opinion...but hey, mine is not the only one. Greece had health care for all...they crashed.  Most civilized governments now such as France are going the other way, slashing taxes and chopping spending because they realize there is only so much of other peopl's money to be had.  You don't have to search very long concerning Canada's HC to find Canadian officials and Canadian news saying their system is broke as well.
Canada's HC is running red ink.  Everyone's is...that is a fact.   

Nobody out there has addressed much of anything, the "globe" is broke, everyone is billions and trillions in debt, there is simply not enough of other people's money to dump into the corruption of socialism and where the money REALLY goes.  They run in red ink for one reason....any money they get they spend three times the amount foolishly or for just plain corrupt reasons.  This in itself will give you HC that is below standard. 

You have to stop the stench of it all before you make any headway on HC or anything else.  We also need to stop fooling ourselves thinking other countries have something better than we do...they don't.  We are all running in the red.  The money was never there for it.

There is nothing at this point you could legislate that would work.....not one thing.  You have not gotten rid of the stench of corruption in the system yet.  Better off doing nothing.
 

[Cabin4]

C4: 

TM, what capacity were these seaman serving in and who was thier employer at the time?

Privately employeed in merchant marine shipping....a cost was provided thru tax. Read the links..quite interesting.

The Government of the Framers saw a problem and saw fit to provide a solution to derive a benefit...to the nation as well as to the individuals concerned....without alot of fanfare and abstractualizing.

..TM7
.

I see little to no parallel with the 1798 legislation and Obama care. 1st, the 1798 law only applied to seaman. So if you did not like paying the tax for the seaman’s HC policy, you can go off and find another occupation. 2nd, they were trying to fund the formation of hospitals were hospitals did not exist. Today, we call those public hospitals which are funded by the tax payer generally.

I'm not a seaman TM, so what do I do? Leave the country to get away from obamacare? The point that makes Obama care unconstitutional is that it applies to everyone as long as you’re breathing. You have NO Choice in the matter. It’s the FIRST law in the US that forces everyone to buy a product. Unless that is you’re a member of one of the big organized labor unions, then you can get an exception because you lined Obama’s reelection campaign fund. Get the point? The 1798 law is only a parallel if you ignore its very narrow application, the specific goal and you ignore that those seaman still had a choice.

I'd like to hear your response.

[scootrd]

C4: 

TM, what capacity were these seaman serving in and who was thier employer at the time?

Privately employeed in merchant marine shipping....a cost was provided thru tax. Read the links..quite interesting.

The Government of the Framers saw a problem and saw fit to provide a solution to derive a benefit...to the nation as well as to the individuals concerned....without alot of fanfare and abstractualizing.

..TM7
.

I see little to no parallel with the 1798 legislation and Obama care.
I'd like to hear your response.

Fortunately the courts do not agree with your assessment,  and they do see a direct correlation to this precident and the Commerce clause, as does Yale and Harvard Law. All have little doubt the challenges moving forward within the courts will be ruled in  the Govt's favor as determined to be on solid footing.

[Cabin4]

Well, there are many legal scholars who disagree with those institutions. So we shall see.