The cause of out of control healthcare costs, including the cost of insurance, is government.
Liberals want to make it worse by giving the cause of the problem more control.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama says health care changes must come this year
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
The cause of out of control healthcare costs, including the cost of insurance, is government.
Liberals want to make it worse by giving the cause of the problem more control.
You are so very right. But it won't be a swift euthanasia. It will be the slow type, where we are unable to get speedy medical treatment because of patient backlog or because quotas have to be met for certain age groups or ethnic minorities and if those quotas are already met, well "so sorry" or your prescription medications will be unavailable like for diabetes mellitus or high blood pressure or thyroid or other common diseases, there will not be enough produced or available once the government takes over, so we will die slow, agonizing deaths because of lack of medical care and medication. Hospitals and private physician practices will fold if they depend solely on government reimbursement for their services. It is a bleak, bleak future indeed.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Many ways, but to tick off a few:
* Efficiencies in administration result in decreased costs
* Since everyone is covered, no more charging you $80 for aspirin tablets to defray costs of those with no coverage
* People can get preventative care which is cheaper than waiting until it becomes an emergency situation
* Improved productivity and fewer days of missed work because people are getting care early instead of waiting until they have a real problem
This is doubtful - the government has ways of adding new layers of bueraucracy. Where has the Federal government ever shown itself to be efficient?
You may be shifting costs around on paper but that doesn't cut any costs.
Are these additional covered persons going to be contributing financially equal to the cost for their care?
If so, why can't they afford to pay for their own insurance now?
What's to stop someone from getting preventative care now?
Money? If so same as above. Will these people be contributing financially equal to the cost of the preventative care?
I see it as just the opposite. Those who do not wish to work will see going to the doctor for free as a paid get out of work day.
Wrong. Every time the government gets involved, there is more bureaucracy and more paperwork involved. That's part of the problem with health care now, there is too much government mandated documentation.
Moot point: My bottle of aspirin without a prescription cost 99 cents yesterday at Walmart. There are all kinds of free prescription drug programs out there (just google) for people who qualify. There is also free hospital care for poor people (see Hill-Burton act).
People who chose to already get preventative care. Women go for mammograms and Pap smears, men go for prostate exams, people go for colonoscopies, etc. every day - preventative care. People go for annual physicals, take the day off from work to do it sometimes (PTO hours) and get routine blood work. Another moot point.
They already do, see my above answer.
You have presented no viable plan for saving health care money. Sorry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Gotta go eat, but I'll answer one point LE...You can't bring your own aspirin to the hospital. They control the meds and they charge.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you are correct Lady Eagle!
Not true. If the doctor orders that you can bring your routine meds from home with you to the hospital, you can take your own.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
No, it is not true around here. Your routine meds have to come from the hospital.Not true. If the doctor orders that you can bring your routine meds from home with you to the hospital, you can take your own.
windcatcher
New Member
I had thought differently until this very week.... my Mother, had surgery for knee replacement.... and a med which the doctor wanted continued wasn't available from the hospital pharmacy... so it was brought from home and it is kept in her room and the nurse gives it with her other meds at the appointed time. Imagine that!Not true. If the doctor orders that you can bring your routine meds from home with you to the hospital, you can take your own.
Personally, I believe in freedom in health care as in a patient's right to be presented with options, get 2nd opinion, exploring alternatives, have family members or friends instructed in delievery of personal care where conditions are extended ... even the right of the patient to choose non-treatment ...... But I also believe in limiting medical liability. I don't trust the government to recognize all treatment options and present them objectively to patients for a choice.
Agreed. I have worked in health care for more years than many members of the BB have been alive - I have personally seen the changes in health care - some for the good and some not so good, and also have witnessed through the decades, the overreaching arm of government control over patient care. That said, this is a subject I know very, very well, having been involved with patient care, documentation, and reimbursement on a daily basis.
Bottom line: please name ANY endeavor that the govt is involved in that is not in worse condition than before they interfered!!!
Now there just may be a few, but I am unaware of them.
"The cure is worse than the disease" whenever the gov't gets it's big porky hands on any problem.
Reagan had it correct - "Government is not the answer to the problem, government IS the problem"
So don't deceive yourselves into thinking that the health issue will be any different - but then you expected the "0" to be the knight in shining armor that saves "Lady Liberty", so maybe you do expect a different result.
Big problem is when you finally find out that "there ain't no free lunch" - assuming the "0" minions will even admit it even then - it'll be way to late to remedy the disaster.
Now there just may be a few, but I am unaware of them.
"The cure is worse than the disease" whenever the gov't gets it's big porky hands on any problem.
Reagan had it correct - "Government is not the answer to the problem, government IS the problem"
So don't deceive yourselves into thinking that the health issue will be any different - but then you expected the "0" to be the knight in shining armor that saves "Lady Liberty", so maybe you do expect a different result.
Big problem is when you finally find out that "there ain't no free lunch" - assuming the "0" minions will even admit it even then - it'll be way to late to remedy the disaster.
Bumped for MP...I'm interested in hearing your responses to these thoughts.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I have been around since the Great Depression. As far as I am concerned there have been only two domestic programs that the Federal government has been involved in that were productive.
The first was the GI Bill after WWII and the Korean Police Action. These programs resulted in the education of a lot of veterans who helped propel the post war economy.
The second was the Interstate Highway System which made travel in this country with its growing population possible.
Of course the Federal Government has the responsibility to defend the country which they have done [though not necessarily with the most efficient use of money] in spite of fierce resistance from the liberal/leftists over the years. For example: At a time when N. Korea and Iran are trying to develop capability to lob a missile at the US "bho" cuts missile defense, which by the way the liberal/leftists said would never work. Of course some of them wanted to disarm unilaterally in the face of the Communist threat but "Cowboy" Reagan rode to the rescue and the Soviet Union fell.
Robert Snow
New Member
Universal health care is one of the greatest need we have in our country. I look forward to the day when the government implements it for all!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Canadians waiting in line for health care there come to the United States. If "bho" successfully socializes medicine in this country where will we go to get health care, Mexico or Cuba?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Actually before Americans wake up, "bho"s popularity tanks, and the democrats get thrown out next year!
Magnetic Poles
New Member
rbell, I am happy to share my thoughts on these with you.
Secondly, while I strongly favor universal health care, that goal is not necessarily nationalization, as your statement above seems to assume. There are many models that could acheive this goal. This could include everything from complete nationalization of the healtch care system; to new regulation that would make sure that no American is without health care, while retaining a place for the private insurance companies' participation. I also believe this to be a legitimate goal of government as laid out in the Constitution of the United States. It is difficult, if not impossible to have "life, liberty" and engage in the "pursuit of happiness" if you are in poor health. It also fall under the need of government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens.
I also have not heard of any nation that even has socialized medicine where a healthy diet is mandated. If you know of one, I am happy to read about it.
You asked for my thoughts, and in a nutshell, there is your response. It is a complex issue, but we cannot affort to stick with the status quo.
Respectfully,
MP
Let me first of all predicate my remarks on the fact that I don't believe government is, by definition, inefficient. It really depends on a lot of factors. I can tell you that corporate America is rife with inefficiencies. Big business is just as bloated as government, and probably more corrupt. Just look at how our factors of production have been sent offshore, decimating our manufacturing base, all in the name of personal enrichment of the corporate officers. Insurance companies are one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and don't want to see the gravy train end. They are willing to take premiums, but pay employees to find reasons to reject legitimate claims. The system we have is broken already. Additionally, the idea that health coverage is tied to employment puts a burden on business, and it also means if a person is laid off from their job, they lose not only their salary, but also the health care for themselves and their families. If you don't have a paycheck, you sure cannot afford COBRA. And God help you if you have a pre-existing condition.
Secondly, while I strongly favor universal health care, that goal is not necessarily nationalization, as your statement above seems to assume. There are many models that could acheive this goal. This could include everything from complete nationalization of the healtch care system; to new regulation that would make sure that no American is without health care, while retaining a place for the private insurance companies' participation. I also believe this to be a legitimate goal of government as laid out in the Constitution of the United States. It is difficult, if not impossible to have "life, liberty" and engage in the "pursuit of happiness" if you are in poor health. It also fall under the need of government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens.
While I understand your concern, again we are not necessarily speaking of the government running the entire health care system. We are not talking about Barney Frank determining if you can get a coronary bypass should that become necessary. Is any system devised by human beings perfect? We both know that is not the case. But what we have lets too many people fall through the cracks. Even insured people can be wiped out very quickly by rather simple and common conditions.
If you are in bondage to poor health and no way to get help, you are not free. And we are already paying for the uninsured, but it is more expensive than necessary. This is partly because people without insurance wait until things are emergencies, and then we all pay more for those visits to the hospital emergency room. This also clogs up the system, especially in the ER, where a visit means a long wait in many cases. This is largely due to people using the ER as the system of last resort. Just as we all pay for shoplifting in the form of higher prices in stores, we also pay for the folks who's bills are written off since they cannot pay them.
I also have not heard of any nation that even has socialized medicine where a healthy diet is mandated. If you know of one, I am happy to read about it.
You asked for my thoughts, and in a nutshell, there is your response. It is a complex issue, but we cannot affort to stick with the status quo.
Respectfully,
MP
Last edited by a moderator:
So which is it?
Those without insurance have no way to get help?
Or we are paying for health care for those without insurance?
On another note - why does the solution for the uninsured necessitate imposing a new system upon those who do have insurance?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
It is a mix. People cannot get routine or preventive care because they cannot afford it. But when it gets severe enough, then the only choice is the ER.
The current system is inefficient and leaves too many people out. You suffer from the "I got mine, too bad for you" syndrome. Why should I pay for your kids to go to school? Why should I pay for police if I never use them? There are things we do as a society for the betterment of all. And besides, even if you have insurance, there are things that can exhaust that, or you could have claims denied.
We can do better.