Online Now 504

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

On this Board 114
Record: 1479 (5/20/2013)

Online now 519
Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)

Boards ▾

Fighton247 Board

The home for discussion on USC athletics

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

Trojan News on the Net

Latest USC headlines from around the net

Reply

The Implosion Cometh Early

  • GauchoGreg said...

    If we ever get back to the point we profit, I'm sure those "rich" among us will get stung.

    well, houses have lost value....

    but for those of us who have owned places for 20 years, or 40 years....

    we will still be showing a "profit".....and the capital gains tax is not enough for these thieves....they want the "profit tax" in order to fund their unconstitutional helath care system as well.

    old scotty

  • GauchoGreg said...

    I have actually had some good discourse with him, and find him more honest than many. He has shown a willingness to listen and even be somewhat flexible in his positions. Not saying you are wrong, as you might have had totally different experiences with him, and it might just be how he and I have related on this board.

    brdcstr1 is still upset with me because i suggest that sanchez would have done a better job than JDB in 06 & 07.

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • GauchoGreg said...

    I thought I already answered this with you. No, not mandatory, but they would sure be advantageous for most to have, making your medical costs much lower through tax incentive. The tax deduction, rather than going to your employers, in my system, would go to you, the patient within the HSA/Major Medical combination. I'm rather libertarian in this regard. People will have motivation to contribute and have such policies/accounts, but not forced to do so, and if they don't, they are stuck with what they get (a stripped down safety net clinics, etc.). However, others might propose the same system, but use the same arguments for Medicare to require you fund an HSA through your pay, but not for the simple process of breathing. At least in such a system, you actually do control your money, as it would never be confiscated by the government, and it would be part of commerce, rather than simply by breathing. I would prefer no mandate, however.

    not bad. but it seems similar to the current system. there is a tax deduction currently although indirectly.

    i guess people with high costs get screwed in your system. but i follow you

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • scinsc5 said...

    not bad. but it seems similar to the current system. there is a tax deduction currently although indirectly.

    i guess people with high costs get screwed in your system. but i follow you

    Actually, it would be nothing like the current system, and those with high costs would not get screwed unless they are long-term high-medical need cases.

    The big difference is that there would be a tremendous increase in market-oriented competition along with dramatic decreases in bureaucratic morasse. When a doctor charges a fee, it gets paid for directly by the patient. No submitting to insurance companies, who then fiddle around with it, eventually dis-allowing various parts, and then re-submitting, etc. No situation where you turn your decisions and payment over to some big bureacracy, with little to keep the patient from over-using the system, or lacking respect for the cost of services by not taking advantage of the things they are paying for, indirectly, and vaguely. The industry would be dramatically more appealing to participate in as a doctor, where your client is your patient, and you have more freedom out from under bureacracies determining what you can and can't do. As a result, I would predict more people going into medicine. I would even be fine with making more alternative medicines approved to use HSA money on, rather than the current limitations by insurance companies. I have said in the past, I would be willing to have some "tax" or fee placed on all of the major medical policies that is intended to help those with long-term needs, which would fit within the context of pooling risk.

    GauchoGreg

  • GauchoGreg said...

    Actually, it would be nothing like the current system, and those with high costs would not get screwed unless they are long-term high-medical need cases.

    The big difference is that there would be a tremendous increase in market-oriented competition along with dramatic decreases in bureaucratic morasse. When a doctor charges a fee, it gets paid for directly by the patient. No submitting to insurance companies, who then fiddle around with it, eventually dis-allowing various parts, and then re-submitting, etc. No situation where you turn your decisions and payment over to some big bureacracy, with little to keep the patient from over-using the system, or lacking respect for the cost of services by not taking advantage of the things they are paying for, indirectly, and vaguely. The industry would be dramatically more appealing to participate in as a doctor, where your client is your patient, and you have more freedom out from under bureacracies determining what you can and can't do. As a result, I would predict more people going into medicine. I would even be fine with making more alternative medicines approved to use HSA money on, rather than the current limitations by insurance companies. I have said in the past, I would be willing to have some "tax" or fee placed on all of the major medical policies that is intended to help those with long-term needs, which would fit within the context of pooling risk.

    sounds good greg. you sure seem to know a lot about this issue. tell me, what would the detractors of your system say is the weakness of your system?

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • scinsc5 said...

    sounds good greg. you sure seem to know a lot about this issue. tell me, what would the detractors of your system say is the weakness of your system?

    Long term needs folks, and in particular, those with pre-existing conditions with such long-term needs. No doubt about it. To be honest, I have not thoroughly hammered this element out, but the total number of people impacted is relatively small, and that's why I would be OK with some form of fee tacked on to all major medical policies to help cover such folks. I would still like for them to be covered by a private system, if possible, but it might have to be more of a public system. Like I said, though, the numbers would not be huge, with the biggest problems with our system covered by the HSAs and major medical.

    By the way, the foundation, the first step, for my system is moving the deduction from the employer to the employee. That would immediately create more flexibility. I have no problem with individuals opting for more comprehensive policies if they like, and moving the deductible over to the patient/employee from the employer would provide that flexibility. You could also have pools created by any number of groups (professional, social, clubs, etc.) that might want to still go into bigger group plans, but having them directed and controlled by the patients/users, rather than employees. I just think, on a personal level, that it makes most sense to get people to be paying, out of pocket (or out of HSA) for most of your medical care.

    GauchoGreg

  • Great thread. Thanks swr and Greg.

    signature image

    I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider

    USCMichigander

  • GauchoGreg said...

    Long term needs folks, and in particular, those with pre-existing conditions with such long-term needs. No doubt about it. To be honest, I have not thoroughly hammered this element out, but the total number of people impacted is relatively small, and that's why I would be OK with some form of fee tacked on to all major medical policies to help cover such folks. I would still like for them to be covered by a private system, if possible, but it might have to be more of a public system. Like I said, though, the numbers would not be huge, with the biggest problems with our system covered by the HSAs and major medical.

    By the way, the foundation, the first step, for my system is moving the deduction from the employer to the employee. That would immediately create more flexibility. I have no problem with individuals opting for more comprehensive policies if they like, and moving the deductible over to the patient/employee from the employer would provide that flexibility. You could also have pools created by any number of groups (professional, social, clubs, etc.) that might want to still go into bigger group plans, but having them directed and controlled by the patients/users, rather than employees. I just think, on a personal level, that it makes most sense to get people to be paying, out of pocket (or out of HSA) for most of your medical care.

    Without employer paid wouldn't there be a lot more people who forgo insurance?

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • GauchoGreg said...

    HSAs on their own remove risk-pooling. But that is where the major medical insurance component comes in. Major medical insurance policies, with high deductible, have extremely low premiums. These are true risk pooling, true INSURANCE policies. Pay for regular care, typical medicines, typical check-ups, minor procedures, etc. out of your HSA, which reduces the bad part of pooling, while retaining pooling for covering the risk of higher cost issues, in the true character of insurance/pooling.

    Ok. Take me through an example. Low income woman with diabetes. Needs lots of hospital trips for diagnosis, work out which meds won't interfere with other meds etc. Then she gets an ear infection. She could go again to the doctor but her allowance is tapped out. Couldn't that lead to a burst eardrum and higher costs incurred at the catastrophic level? Do you see what I am getting at? Isn't there a possibility that, especially low-income folks, will have to pay higher costs because of the environmental factors that lead to their illness and might be worried about exceeding their ability to afford doctors visits leading to higher, more serious costs due to underaccess at the primary level?

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • brdcstr1 said...

    So yourbest response to Greg's questions is to cut and paste another article that's fraught with the word "might" throughout?

    The left was previously holding up the CBO's projections as evidence of it's feasibility and affordability. Now that we have a 10 year projection instead of the previous six-year projection that produces far more unfavorable numbers... The left trots out scholars to discredit the CBO numbers.

    "Or maybe they won't. As Ezra says, there's really no way to be certain. But if it's possible the Affordable Care Act will cost a lot more than we think, it's just as possible that it will cost a lot less."

    Sounds like This Guy Is Willing to Roll the Dice on $1 + Trillion Gamble that he guessed right. Not exactly a prudent way of approaching a new business start up venture.

    Thanks for your kindly words. What are the twenty year numbers? I'd be intrigued to know...

    Some context for the new numbers, good and bad: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/news/economy/health-reform-costs/

    On high-deductible options under ACA: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/high-deductible_health_care_in.html

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • scinsc5 said...

    Without employer paid wouldn't there be a lot more people who forgo insurance?

    Employer-paid is kind of dumb. The ever-higher costs are reflected in lower wages. There are benefits to bigger firms over smaller ones. And changing jobs or being unemployed is problematic. There is no reason for it other than historical coincidence.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • USCMichigander said...

    Great thread. Thanks swr and Greg.

    Greg's really helped my thinking on this stuff. Much better than the threads with the usual 'all libs blah blah' or 'George Bush hates black people' nonsense!

    This post was edited by swr22 on 3/14/2012 at 10:34 PM

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • swr22 said...

    Employer-paid is kind of dumb. The ever-higher costs are reflected in lower wages. There are benefits to bigger firms over smaller ones. And changing jobs or being unemployed is problematic. There is no reason for it other than historical coincidence.

    I not sure dumb is the right word and I wouldn't call it coincidence. It's based on history and law. I agree it seems quaint. I would guess without it there would be an even bigger (maybe much) problem with uninsured. It's kind of like a minimum wage in that it's artificial. I do like gregs theory of doctors getting paid more directly.

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • GauchoGreg said...

    So today we hear that the CBO's estimate of the cost for Obamacare, used to pass the law when they promised the cost would not exceed $1Trillion, has been doubled, among four fun stories about Obamacare which should lead any sane, critical thinking person to understand that the whole program has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being feasible. Here is the first story, (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831):

    <<

    "President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

    Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

    Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised."

    >>

    ******

    OK, now, the fun part kicks in, with the second story. In an amazing, beautiful twisting of logic and obliteration of the principles of Obamacare, it will both cost more and have greater savings. "Why?", you ask. Well, because Obamacare is going to make people lose their private insurance coverage. "What?" you ask, "I thought it was going to make insurance more available to people?". Well, that would be the case if it really intended to do that, but instead, the reality is that Obamacare is not going to "earn" more because it will be reaping the rewards of more businesses and individuals dropping insurance and paying their fees. This fun logic is explained in this fun story (http://news.investors.com/article/604284/201203132014/cbo-obamacare-savings-rise-on-unemployment.htm):

    <<

    "ObamaCare has found a way to make unemployment pay. Higher forecasts for joblessness mean fewer tax breaks and higher fines on employers and individuals, the Congressional Budget Office forecast Tuesday, helping to boost the program's deficit savings by a further $48 billion.

    Even more people will lose private insurance, CBO predicted, and more will be uninsured. That is the opposite of what the sweeping health law was supposed to achieve. But more people without insurance and less employer-provided coverage means lower taxpayer subsidies and more employer and individual fines.

    ObamaCare's insurance coverage portions are expected to cost $51 billion more over 2012-2021 than the CBO estimated last year .

    But the increase would be more than offset by a net $99 billion increase in various revenues.

    On average, 3.8 million fewer people annually will have employer-based coverage than the CBO estimated last year. One million fewer people will get coverage via exchanges, while some 4.2 million more will be uninsured, annually.

    This partially reflects CBO's higher unemployment forecasts.

    With more people not working, more people will sign up for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance, boosting those costs by $168 billion over the 10-year span.

    But fewer people will buy insurance via exchanges, reducing premium subsidies by $97 billion. Meanwhile, the decline in employer-based coverage will cut small-employer tax credits by $20 billion.

    That reduces the increased net coverage costs to $51 billion.

    The projected rise in revenue is ironically largely due to the increase in the uninsured and the decline in employer-based coverage.

    The government will fine individuals $45 billion — up from $34 billion — for failing to have insurance. Businesses are expected to pay $96 billion for not providing coverage, an increase of $15 billion.

    Another $81 billion in higher net revenues comes largely from employees no longer getting tax-exempt health insurance but instead being paid more in taxable wages.

    ....."

    >>

    ***

    OK, so less people insured, less people on exchanges, more fines, less tax deductions. Sounds just like the arguments used to help pass Obamacare, right? What, that isn't what they promised?

    Is there ONE DAMNED REASON why we should now believe that the current cost estimate of $1.76 Trillion is accurate? Where is the cost of the actual medical care for all these new people that don't have insurance going to be incurred. These stories don't talk about that. You can also bet your ass that the current estimates of people losing their current insurance coverage are grossly under-estimated.

    Does anyone think this whole system sounds sustainable? Well, it does not end there . . . . (To Be Continued)

    "Obamacare", or 2 unfunded wars. We don't have the $ for either.

    You people better stop complaining about the president, lest his A-G come to give you some "due process"...by way of predator drone.

    This post was edited by oldtrojan_93 on 3/15/2012 at 7:31 AM

    signature image

    oldtrojan_93

  • oldtrojan_93 said...

    "Obamacare", or 2 unfunded wars. We don't have the $ for either.

    You people better stop complaining about the president, lest his A-G come to give you some "due process"...by way of predator drone.

    Good to see you on this board.

    Morethanafan

  • scinsc5 said...

    I not sure dumb is the right word and I wouldn't call it coincidence. It's based on history and law. I agree it seems quaint. I would guess without it there would be an even bigger (maybe much) problem with uninsured. It's kind of like a minimum wage in that it's artificial. I do like gregs theory of doctors getting paid more directly.

    It is dumb, hardly "quaint". It was the result of people logically trying to circumvent government intrusion, admittedly during a time of war, in the private sector, rather than any logical, efficient way to pay for health care. ANY reasoning in favor of the stupid system ended at the end of the war. Why in the world do we want others to take our money and pay for things, limited by the logistics of buying for full companies and without our own values and motivations, rather than just letting us do it ourselves? It would be impossible for an employer or an insurer to have the ability or interest in giving us the flexibility we would like, or actually shop around on a case-by-case basis, like the individual consumer could/would do. It takes away the patron/client relationship, which ensures the customer is treated well. The pooling makes sense for major medical needs, but it leads to excessive spending on non-major medical use such as trivial office visits, non-essential medicines, etc.

    I'm really glad you are open to listening to this stuff, it sets you apart from so many that seem to really believe there is such a thing as a free lunch, or that government management of our lives is the best way. I can tell you are someone who is willing to work hard, has pride in your own production, and responsible for himself. I believe we, as a society, have gone too far in taking care of those not willing to work hard or be responsible for themselves, often enabling such behavior. Sometimes, the best thing we can do is challenge people to do better, and the result is a more productive, happy person. The challenge is, finding that balance between helping those truly in need, without enabling/encouraging others to fall into "need", and over-burdening the productive and pulling us all down.

    GauchoGreg

  • swr22 said...

    Ok. Take me through an example. Low income woman with diabetes. Needs lots of hospital trips for diagnosis, work out which meds won't interfere with other meds etc. Then she gets an ear infection. She could go again to the doctor but her allowance is tapped out. Couldn't that lead to a burst eardrum and higher costs incurred at the catastrophic level? Do you see what I am getting at? Isn't there a possibility that, especially low-income folks, will have to pay higher costs because of the environmental factors that lead to their illness and might be worried about exceeding their ability to afford doctors visits leading to higher, more serious costs due to underaccess at the primary level?

    Absolutely. I have never claimed to have it all figured out. There are elements/considerations that still need work. But I believe these are absolutely exceptions to the norm. And while they are exceptions, we certainly must make an effort to find a solution to them. Part of the solution, as I have said, is to have some form of safety net system, possibly clinics staffed by medical/nursing students and recent grads, as interns, obviously, along with seasoned professionals. The point being have relatively stripped-down clinics, not claiming to the be the best service, but certainly qualified and competent, to handle regular medical care for those not able to cover their own costs. Whether that be someone not at all able to pay for their needs on a long-term basis, or those that find themselves in a situation like you postulate. They may not have as nice of waiting rooms, they may have to wait in the reception room longer, and they may not have as much variety. But they would have service, and those clinics could refer out to private sector care for those services they do not cover.

    The big point that sometimes gets forgotten when we are talking abou this stuff is that more than 80% of us can and would handle the vast majority of our regular care through a system of HSAs and Major medical insurance, and by doing so, I truly believe the vast majority of our medical care costs would drop dramatically (particularly when adding in tort reform). So, those things that we currently see truly outrageous costs would also come down, which would make dealing with these issues even easier than they look right now.

    GauchoGreg

  • GauchoGreg said...

    Absolutely. I have never claimed to have it all figured out. There are elements/considerations that still need work. But I believe these are absolutely exceptions to the norm. And while they are exceptions, we certainly must make an effort to find a solution to them. Part of the solution, as I have said, is to have some form of safety net system, possibly clinics staffed by medical/nursing students and recent grads, as interns, obviously, along with seasoned professionals. The point being have relatively stripped-down clinics, not claiming to the be the best service, but certainly qualified and competent, to handle regular medical care for those not able to cover their own costs. Whether that be someone not at all able to pay for their needs on a long-term basis, or those that find themselves in a situation like you postulate. They may not have as nice of waiting rooms, they may have to wait in the reception room longer, and they may not have as much variety. But they would have service, and those clinics could refer out to private sector care for those services they do not cover.

    The big point that sometimes gets forgotten when we are talking abou this stuff is that more than 80% of us can and would handle the vast majority of our regular care through a system of HSAs and Major medical insurance, and by doing so, I truly believe the vast majority of our medical care costs would drop dramatically (particularly when adding in tort reform). So, those things that we currently see truly outrageous costs would also come down, which would make dealing with these issues even easier than they look right now.

    Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • Interesting story by Sally Pipes today (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/13/romney-fication-of-health-care-reform/):

    <<

    "Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick just exhorted legislators to overhaul the way the state pays for health care. He’s pushing for an end to the traditional arrangement of compensating doctors and hospitals for each service they provide.

    It’s not yet clear what will replace this “fee-for-service” payment system. But there’s growing support for a “global budget” model, under which primary care physicians would receive annual lump sums for each of their patients - regardless of how little or how much care they needed.

    The move toward global budgets highlights the failure of Massachusetts’s 2006 health reform plan to make health care more affordable. Because the Bay State’s plan served as the template for President Obama’s health reform package, the consequences of that failure could soon be felt nationwide.

    A new report from researchers at the University of Minnesota details the magnitude of Massachusetts’ health reform catastrophe. They interviewed more than 3,000 state residents in 2010 and found that “Massachusetts continues to struggle with escalating health care costs, reflecting the decision to defer addressing costs in the 2006 legislation.”

    The study revealed that the share of insurance premiums for family coverage paid by the average worker jumped more than 10 percent since 2006. Half of respondents said that they were spending more on health coverage in 2010 than 2009. And a quarter weren’t confident that they could afford care the following year.

    About 1 in 4 respondents reported delaying treatment because of concerns about cost. That share is up from 2006. And 1 in 5 adults had problems paying medical bills - the same percentage as in 2006. “There was no sustained improvement in problems paying medical bills,” the researchers wrote.

    The Bay State reform effort did expand coverage and improve access to preventative care. But the rapidly rising cost of care has counteracted these benefits. As the researchers politely put it, it’s “likely that the economic downturn and the continuing increase in health care costs … dampened any gains in coverage and affordability that might otherwise have been achieved under health reform in the state.”

    ....

    Between 2006 and 2010, average employer premiums increased from $1,011 to $1,200 for single coverage, and from $3,128 to $3,444 for family coverage. If premiums continue to rise at this rate, state residents will see their take-home pay dwindle even more.

    ....

    Some policymakers believe that global budgets are the answer to this problem. Because doctors would receive a flat annual fee for each patient, they’d have a direct financial incentive to keep their patients healthy - or more cynically - to limit the care they provide.

    That’s exactly what has happened in Canada, which implemented such budgets in the 1970s. Last year, Canadians were waiting to receive more than 941,000 procedures. The average total wait time between referral from a primary care physician and treatment by a specialist reached 19 weeks in 2011. That’s more than double the wait time in 1993.

    ....

    In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney assured his constituents that “the costs of health care will be reduced” if his health reform package passed. President Obama made essentially the same assurances prior to the passage of his reform package, pledging that it would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.”

    ....."
    >>

    If anyone didn't already know, Sally Pipes has been a consistent attack dog on the ass of Obamacare. Just saying to be up front about the author.

    On the face of it, without looking up statistics, it appears the rate of increase in premiums in Massachusetts may be lower than that of America, on the whole. While that may or may not reflect any degree of success of RomneyCare (one must also consider other variables, such as demographics), it still shows that the plan is far from supporting the claims of what the plan would do by those crafting the plan, including Romney. I also believe the problem of jobbing is already huge in Mass, but is likely going to keep increasing.

    This whole idea of "global budgets" seem insane to me. Taking even more responsibility away from consumers holding their health care costs down, but now putting doctors in a position where they have little incentive to even see their patients, let alone spend much time on them. Nope, just pack more patients in, and to do so, limit the time you spend on each patient at any time.

    GauchoGreg

  • Each service means over-treatment, each patient means throughput and undertreatment. Put people on a wage!

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • swr22 said...

    Each service means over-treatment, each patient means throughput and undertreatment.

    Absolutely.

    swr22 said...
    Put people on a wage!

    How would you structure the wages? Would they all be flat? Adjusted by cost of living in the various markets? Adjusted by education level, or amount of on-going continuing ed? Would the wage go up or down by some measure of successes or patient approval/demand? Anything to encourage the health care providers to provide better service, to be more efficient, or to go the extra-mile for a patient? Impacted by poor record or low approval?

    Also, how would you handle medications and the costs of divices/scans, tests, etc.?

    This post was edited by GauchoGreg on 3/15/2012 at 12:21 PM

    GauchoGreg

  • GauchoGreg said...

    On the face of it, without looking up statistics, it appears the rate of increase in premiums in Massachusetts may be lower than that of America, on the whole.

    the needle in the haystack?

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

  • scinsc5 said...

    the needle in the haystack?

    Three things to remember. First, as indicated, you have to consider other factors, such as demographics. Second, the conditions in Massachusetts (size/scope of the system, demographics, etc.) are MUCH more likely to support a system like Romneycare or Obamacare, than those of the nation as a whole. And, third, everyone admits the existing system sucks, and just because this case MAY currently be working better than the nation on the whole, it hardly means that it is a situation we should adopt for the whole country when there are much better options.

    GauchoGreg

  • GauchoGreg said...

    Absolutely.

    swr22 said... Put people on a wage!

    How would you structure the wages? Would they all be flat? Adjusted by cost of living in the various markets? Adjusted by education level, or amount of on-going continuing ed? Would the wage go up or down by some measure of successes or patient approval/demand? Anything to encourage the health care providers to provide better service, to be more efficient, or to go the extra-mile for a patient? Impacted by poor record or low approval?

    Also, how would you handle medications and the costs of divices/scans, tests, etc.?

    I shall have to look into how some hospitals do it at the moment. I do know, however, that the Mayo Clinic which gets high marks for care and patient experience have doctors on a wage.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22 ●

  • Republicans And Their Allies Distort New CBO Report On Health Reform; Washington Scorekeepers Still Think Obamacare Will Pay For Itself, Reduce Deficit | The New Republic

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-fox

    www.tnr.com

    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

    scinsc5

USC
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports