Socialized Medicine

[5-90]

Probably getting side tracked here, yes in fact we are, but I can't resist noting that you said SS was "designed as a five-year stopgap plan", and yet it has survived and worked for 75 years. Hmm? Perhaps they need to switch from band aids to duct tape, my favorite, LOL.

I think we all agree here that our current medical care system is broken and needs replacing or fixing. The problem is how to fix it and what to replace it with, with out killing one of the few remaining parts of the US economy that is still profitable.

We have a local clinic here that takes only cash, no insurance or other payment methods accepted. They are still only $15 to see the doctor to get a prescription for something like a cold, soar throat. Been here for about 20 years now!

Mike -
SS has "survived and worked," but it wasn't designed to, and it's been getting patched up everytime it starts to falter.

Now comes probably the biggest challenge - the Baby Boomers are getting old, SS has never really "saved" any money to cope with it, and Ponzi's bill is coming due. SS doesn't really "save" any money - what comes in in SS Tax goes right back out in payments for retirees (which isn't enough) and disability (likewise.)

That is why I say it needs to be rewritten from whole cloth and the current system scrapped - if we're going to keep it around, and don't plan for another population bulge (sure as stink in a spacesuit, we'll see one again...) it's going to melt down and stay that way. Oops.

I don't mind the idea of a real system for disability and retirement that isn't employer-provided - there aren't many real "careers" left, unless you count the government. So, the government can provide something. It can do so reasonably (it probably chooses not to,) and the idea isn't new - I believe it was Thomas Paine who advanced the idea in post-Colonial America (I don't recall which book he advanced it in, but I'm pretty sure it was his idea. Some hundred-odd years ago.

(Then again, look at Twain's commentary on governance some hundred-odd years ago, and we can see that none of these problems are really new. They've just gotten worse...)

SSI shouldn't be scrapped outright without a replacement - but it should be scrapped and replaced with a system designed for longevity.

But that's fuel for another discussion, I'm sure. We're talking about medical insurance and medical costs. I've no particular problem with MDs making a healthy amount of money (don't let's get greedy - but they do deserve more than the typical politician, lawyer, or bureaucrat. Unlike the latter, the MD actually does produce something tangible - health. I liken MDs to tradesmen in that regard. Where should it stop? As far as I'm concerned, no-one really has a more onerous job than POTUS - so whatever POTUS makes is the salary cap for the nation. OTOH, most Congresscritters don't merit being paid at all...)

The fractious scene caused by insurance companies (because there are so damned many of them) is largely what is causing all of the trouble - if you don't want to accept one insurance company, there are always more. Going to a true "single payer" setup is probably not a good answer - since it would give a monopoly. However, I do believe we have too much competition - and too much of something can be just as unhealthy as not enough of it (case in point - drinking too much water can kill you just as dead as dehydration. The effects of hypoxia and hyperoxia are similar to a point. Some salt is necessary in the diet, but too much can lead to hypertension and coronary disease.)

So, how do you propose we strike a balance? Because that's what we really need.

 

[fscrig75]

No secondary insurance. The hospital billed tricare $900 and tricare only paid them $90 and the hospital had to eat it because it's easier than leveling the playing field.

It might be that the Hospital would charge a civilian $900 but they have agreed to only charge Tri-Care $90.
Maybe I don't know.

 

[fscrig75]

Healthcare Economist

The Swiss have it right, I think.
Everyone still pays for their own care.
The Gov't will subsidize a percent for lower income families.
Private insurance companies don't go belly up, well here I'm sure a few would since there are so many of them.
The really good DRs can open a private practice up, but if patients choose to go there they are going to pay for the excess, no the primary insurance.

 

[RichP]

Mike -
SS has "survived and worked," but it wasn't designed to, and it's been getting patched up everytime it starts to falter.

Now comes probably the biggest challenge - the Baby Boomers are getting old, SS has never really "saved" any money to cope with it, and Ponzi's bill is coming due. SS doesn't really "save" any money - what comes in in SS Tax goes right back out in payments for retirees (which isn't enough) and disability (likewise.)

That is why I say it needs to be rewritten from whole cloth and the current system scrapped - if we're going to keep it around, and don't plan for another population bulge (sure as stink in a spacesuit, we'll see one again...) it's going to melt down and stay that way. Oops.

I don't mind the idea of a real system for disability and retirement that isn't employer-provided - there aren't many real "careers" left, unless you count the government. So, the government can provide something. It can do so reasonably (it probably chooses not to,) and the idea isn't new - I believe it was Thomas Paine who advanced the idea in post-Colonial America (I don't recall which book he advanced it in, but I'm pretty sure it was his idea. Some hundred-odd years ago.

(Then again, look at Twain's commentary on governance some hundred-odd years ago, and we can see that none of these problems are really new. They've just gotten worse...)

SSI shouldn't be scrapped outright without a replacement - but it should be scrapped and replaced with a system designed for longevity.

But that's fuel for another discussion, I'm sure. We're talking about medical insurance and medical costs. I've no particular problem with MDs making a healthy amount of money (don't let's get greedy - but they do deserve more than the typical politician, lawyer, or bureaucrat. Unlike the latter, the MD actually does produce something tangible - health. I liken MDs to tradesmen in that regard. Where should it stop? As far as I'm concerned, no-one really has a more onerous job than POTUS - so whatever POTUS makes is the salary cap for the nation. OTOH, most Congresscritters don't merit being paid at all...)

The fractious scene caused by insurance companies (because there are so damned many of them) is largely what is causing all of the trouble - if you don't want to accept one insurance company, there are always more. Going to a true "single payer" setup is probably not a good answer - since it would give a monopoly. However, I do believe we have too much competition - and too much of something can be just as unhealthy as not enough of it (case in point - drinking too much water can kill you just as dead as dehydration. The effects of hypoxia and hyperoxia are similar to a point. Some salt is necessary in the diet, but too much can lead to hypertension and coronary disease.)

So, how do you propose we strike a balance? Because that's what we really need.

Social security was never intended to provide social security, it was a tax, plain and simple, if it had been for what it was advertised for they would not have set the age to collect at 65 when the average age of Americans was in the lower 50's. Those that did live to collect generally only lived a few years past that time. In 3 generations NO ONE in my family EVER lived to collect ONE DIME after paying into it their entire life.

 

[buschwhaked]

It might be that the Hospital would charge a civilian $900 but they have agreed to only charge Tri-Care $90.
Maybe I don't know.

lol, yes thats what I've been trying to say.

 

[RichP]

lol, yes thats what I've been trying to say.

Yea but you can bet your bottom dollar that they tack it on, or as much of it as they can, to the OTHER non military 'customers' whenever possible.

 

[Ecomike]

Social security was never intended to provide social security, it was a tax, plain and simple, if it had been for what it was advertised for they would not have set the age to collect at 65 when the average age of Americans was in the lower 50's. Those that did live to collect generally only lived a few years past that time. In 3 generations NO ONE in my family EVER lived to collect ONE DIME after paying into it their entire life.

Sorry to hear that.

My older brother is already on SS. And he is a retired bankrupt MD. SS minimum retirement is 63, unless you are also disabled, IIRC. I think they raised the retirement age in the 1980's under Reagan to 63/65, but I don't know what it was before then. My brother is the third generation here to retire on SS.

 

[fscrig75]

lol, yes thats what I've been trying to say.

Ok I guess I had a blonde moment.

 

[JNickel101]

To quote it said:

• "An April Gallup poll showed only 7 percent of British citizens were very satisfied with their health care system.
• Twenty-five percent of those polled said they were extremely dissatisfied with their care.
• Another 27 percent were somewhat dissatisfied."

I am not going to go digging for stats, but I'd guess at least half the US is very dissatisfied with our system.

So....may as well make it Socialized, so that 93% can be less than completely satisfied? Lets level the playing field so that everyone is miserable, right? Not just half....

#2, I'd be willing to bet that 50% dissatisfied is about the same 50% in this country who doesn't pay any income tax at all....

Amazing...

 

[XJEEPER]

It's easier to be cost effective when you ignore the health care needs of 40% of the population because they have no insurance. I looked at that site, link, you posted and it looked to me like their stats for the number of people that were unhappy with their system were far lower than ours are.

To quote it said:

• "An April Gallup poll showed only 7 percent of British citizens were very satisfied with their health care system.
• Twenty-five percent of those polled said they were extremely dissatisfied with their care.
• Another 27 percent were somewhat dissatisfied."

I am not going to go digging for stats, but I'd guess at least half the US is very dissatisfied with our system.

Convenient.....your opinion does not = fact. Just like the Obama administration guessing on how many US Citizens agree with him.


I'll help you out here, took me about 30 seconds to find this info......on Gallup's website.

Nov-2008

• Gallup's annual healthcare trends, updated each November since 2001, show that public concern about U.S. healthcare centers on access and costs, not the quality of medical care. In fact, nearly 6 in 10 Americans (57%) interviewed Nov. 11-13, 2008, describe the quality of healthcare in the country as excellent or good. Attitudes on this have been stable in recent years.
• Americans' perceptions are much more negative when it comes to healthcare coverage. Only about one in four Americans currently believe healthcare coverage in the country is excellent or good.
• Also, the overwhelming majority of Americans -- 79% -- say they are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare in this country, a figure up slightly from the 71% found in 2001.
• And among all Americans, 83% say the quality of healthcare they receive is either "excellent" or "good." Only 16% say it's either "only fair" or "poor."
• Americans are only a bit less positive about their own healthcare coverage, with 67% describing the coverage they now have as excellent or good.
• Despite the persistent inflation in healthcare costs, 58% of Americans are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, a percentage that has been consistent in recent years. This could be, in part, because four in five Americans with private health insurance say their employer either shares or pays all of the costs of their premiums.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 13-16, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

Here's another interesting read.....Big Government VS Big Business
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117739/Big-Gov-Viewed-Greater-Threat-Big-Business.aspx