Ernie:

I agree with ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, go sell these ideas to your democratic congressman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David

Actually I AM an independant. BUT, times and circumstances here on Club Cobra all but demand I take a stand. So, for the time being, I'm a Liberal if that's what you folks want to call it.

We MUST limit medical care, just an opinion, I think that is crucial to getting a handle on costs. Heck we already DO limit health care for many, to many, it's time to recognize that fact, bring it out in the open and deal with it.

Inevitably talk of health reform HERE on CC turns back to Medicaid and the "worthless no good poor sucking at the public trough". The 20 to 40 million without health care or limited care is the primary issue. Those ON welfare already HAVE medical care. This isn't about "welfare reform", a separate issue, it's about Health Care reform for the middle class and the working poor.

The Republicans need to come up with WORKABLE solutions. Tort reform is SO problematic it will simply have to be dealt with as a separate issue. No way your going to pass THAT AND in depth health care reform at the same time. A national insurance plan (across state lines) is not an answer by itself by any means. It's worth considering but I have a hard time taking it seriously as "reform", it aint. It's more of the same on a different scale.

I say we follow Swedens lead as to what they have found that works. "Reform" is a constant undertaking. They are tweaking their system on a regular basis, as should we. What works today or what we THOUGHT would work (like interstate insurance) might not work tommorow, or at all. We need to be flexible on these issues.

BIGGEST problem is Government moves SO slow! Some kind of "quick response team" would be nice, impractical day dream, but nice.

While considering welfare reform let's not forget the primary goal, getting coverage to the typical American family or small business that is affordable. The 20 to 40 million without.

Been a busy afternoon so I am a bit behind.

Ex,
My point on the earlier post was a good portion of the money needed to cover these people can be found by eliminating the free rides. I have said it before (I think on this thread) my wife's cousin is on welfare because they pay all her bills, buy her a new car every 5 years, and she doesn't have to try to do anything. She has had 8 kids and the gravy train keeps coming. Now that 1 turned 18 2 years ago and she has gotten a little less the last 2 years, she is thinking about getting pregnant again, so she can get that money back up to where it was. This is unacceptable. There is a lot of money in just Welfare that is free ride. Leave taxes alone, leave the big bills alone and FIX what is broken first. Reform the Welfare system and then apply that money that we already pay to what Welfare was supposed to be in the first place. For people that NEED it. I see government health care subsidies of any form welfare. Reform the ENTIRE Welfare system including all food, money, and health care, and provide it to those who NEED it and I would be many more would be on board. I believe, based on my experiences, that there is a lot of fraud, a lot of laziness and not wanting to work. I also have a problem with a "Help" program that buys new $40-50K vehicles every 5 years. I can understand the need for a new vehicle in terms of reliability and maintenance costs, but there is no need for those expensive vehicles, when the reasoning is that they need a car. If you need for many passengers, a minivan fits better. Don't like it, work harder at getting a job. If you have 3 or less kids you get a mid size base model car. A full sized SUV is not needed, if they can afford a boat or whatever else will require a full size to tow, then they are in less need of the aid than they are getting. Welfare is not to make everyone rich.

Yeah, the classic have more kids make more welfare money syndrome, man I hate that!

Some years ago Hawaii all but stopped with the "welfare" program's, just cut 'em out. Over a period of a few years, slowly tightening the screws, then gone, nada, get a job!

I had a repair/sales shop for a couple of years in Honolulu. The first year I was located right behind a BMW dealership (I was in an alley behind them). My customers were certainly "up scale", life was good, but the rent was killing me! So I moved to what I THOUGHT would be a great location. Right by a heavily traveled intersection, TONS of car's through there everyday. I hung out plenty signs! But it was in a "sleezy" part of town. No more "up scale" customers, they wouldn't come into that part of town. Whew, I made a real bad call on moving. Anyway, I got to know a LOT of people on "welfare", it was rather eye opening. I realized that those "taking advantage of the system" were out weighed by those who truly needed help. It completely changed my thinking on the whole welfare issue seeing it up close and personal.

...then I closed the shop and moved because frankly, it was to depressing dealing with those folks everyday (bless their hearts). I got robbed, I got assaulted, it was all in all, not pretty. :)

Limit medical care to get a handle on costs. Like the Diamond Exchange limits the number of diamonds to keep the costs "handled?"

JOBS are in HIGH demand now, because the supply of them is LOW.

I suspect there is a lot of waste when it comes to "procedures". Some of which are done on a CYA basis to prevent any possible suit for malpractice. Which of course brings us back to tort reform. Other procedures, like in the case of some elderly patients, may not be warranted. It's something to look at that could have a real impact, unpopular though it may be. And THAT is the fundamental problem "unpopular". Folks that "have" don't want to "give up" anything, don't rock the boat, we got ours, leave us alone.

We "ration" organ transplants based on the need, among other things, we should look at alternatives for additional "rationing" where it's feasible.

You want an unpopular fix that WILL work? Switch to catastrophic coverage only. No more first dollar coverage for anyone. It is really basic, if you want an insurer to pay for an ordinary visit to a Doctor, or you want them to pay for a simple procedure like stitching up a cut finger. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE INSURER MORE THAN THEY PAY FOR THOSE LITTLE THINGS. That removes consumerism from the health CARE equation. Put the consumer back into play where they pay for the first $4000. to $8000. of their medical care each year and they will shop and they will demand reasonable prices. Right now MD's and hospitals have jacked up prices because every year insurers come along and say, "$x.xx this is how much we will pay for y treatment. Say that treatment is $100. And the insurer pays 45% or $45.00. The UNINSURED today is charged $100 and pays $100.00. The INSURED pays $20.00 in most cases and the insurer pays $45.00, for a total of $65.00. Take away the insurer, AND the premiums they collect and the price pressure on the MD's and hospitals would be downwards from $65.00 instead of $100. [the amount they actually receive using artificially inflated prices] Would they come down to $50.00 for that same procedure/visit? Absolutely, because with no insurer involved, they actually get the whole $50.00. With no claims to file or follow.
People want first dollar coverage but now they're balking at paying the COST of first dollar coverage. Taking away what they want wouldn't be popular. But it would cut their insurance premiums in HALF. That could make catastrophic coverage a little more palatable.

Allow the 1st 4-8K in a medical savings account & maybe not so unpopular. Would bring the overall cost way down.

And allow balances to carry over to the next year rather than confiscation.

Thereby allowing one to increase the "deductible" if money wasn't all spent.

This is one of the best ideas I have seen along with some of the following posts and is mostly the way I do it. All of my medical bills under $10K I pay and don't use my insurance.That is for a catastophic parts failure.

Ron :)

Govt would insist on a 3 or 5 year max carry-forward. But that's acceptable. The trade off for the the Govt money grubbers would be no more med expense deducts. MSA's only.

I haven't bothered to respond because 4 to 8K out of pocket per year is a pipe dream, never happen. It's just not realistic, it's "reform for the wealthy", they already have coverage and they aint given it up for those who don't.

Might be a good way to further ration care though.

What you want is the Union of Socialist States of America. The USSA would go broke even quicker than the USSR.

And I'd bet most of you liberals don't even realize that the USSA is what your glorious leaders REALLY want. Because want you profess to be a good thing CANNOT exist in a Democratic Republic.

What I want is a National health care plan similiar to every other industrial country on planet earth, with the exception of America. What I will settle for is affordable quality care for MOST Americans until we can cover ALL Americans.

If you really knew what you were talking about, I doubt you'd have this view.

Micronesia, as previously brought up by yourself, has a nationalized healthcare plan. Let's adopt it.

See what happens when you can't spell for ****. You end up moving to "OREGON" instead of "NORWAY". You should have just kept on going East. You'd be happy.................we'd be happy. :LOL:

What you want is a "Robin Hood Government that steals from those who have to give to those who don't earn. When you boil it all down, Robin Hood was just a thief with a great PR dept..

You mention "affordable!" Here's a shock for you. We, the USA, cannot afford any more, period. We are broke.