jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (26 posts)

What would you have done to improve American health care?

  1. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    If you were able to abolish Obamacare, what would you do to improve our current health care system?

    Democrats are keen to say that our system doesn’t work, that our life expectancy is short compared to other first-world countries, our health care is expensive, people with pre-existing conditions can’t get insurance, and taxpayers are paying for uninsured people who use the emergency room as their primary health care.

    Let’s look at the life-expectancy claim.  The National Review states, “In his new book Priceless, health-care expert John Goodman shows that, if one equalizes fatal injuries (car crashes, murders, etc.) across countries, the U.S. has the highest average life expectancy in the world — Sweden ranks sixth — even though Americans are more likely to be out of shape than Swedes are.”  The National Review goes on to make further points against the need for universal healthcare.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 … h-anderson

    Most of us can agree that our health care could be less expensive, people with pre-existing conditions do deserve insurance, and uninsured people are using the emergency room as their primary health care; that’s expensive for the taxpayer. 

    Short of universal healthcare, what should we have done to improve our current system?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1) Limit malpractice awards.  Maybe 1/10th of what is given now.

      2) Every ER to have a 24 hour clinic next door.  Literally in the next room: triage as a patient enters the waiting area to determine which door to take.

      3) Reduce clinic charges by 25% IF patient can show a yearly checkup was done.  Kind of like a dental exam.

      4) Disallow insurance plans specifying a doctor or hospital unless similar costs are charged to everyone by that doctor/hospital.  Intent is to prevent negotiated prices with other patients providing the profit/upkeep/maintenance etc. of the doctor.

      5) Simplify patient bills and insurance forms.  Simple enough for every patient to understand.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This would have been a great start.  I particularly like your first point,  an idea that has been echoed many times but was not addressed by Obamacare.

        1. vehnh profile image60
          vehnhposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By limiting frivolous lawsuits and malpractice awards, that might entice more doctors to fill the needed voids. Universal healthcare  works pretty good in this country when it come to the military simply because there's a decent doctor to military personnel ratio. As far as the private sector, it's funny that after 60+ years after universal healthcare was introduced to Western Europe that they haven't figured out a way to deal with the wait lists that go on for months. But at least they're much more accessible than healthcare in this country!

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That research has been denounced even by the people who researched the study.

      Link coming in a second.

      Edit:
      http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/environ … 30807-4-en

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Where is the research denounced?  Specifically, what part of your source proves this?  Are you referring to the statement that says there was a controversial study conducted by the EPA?

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have always supported this plan, recent complications added with Republican run states refusing medicare expansion and setting up state run exchanges have created a huge mess...but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Check out this illuminating article

          http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/1 … f-the.html

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I appreciate your stance on this, but we disagree.  I don't believe that our government needed to socialize health care in America to fix its problems.  Personally, I wouldn't have put the metaphorical baby in THIS water to begin with. 

            Best wishes.

    3. profile image61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Unwinding the already massive Federal regulation of medicine and the anti-market laws that have burdened medical care in America since the institution of Medicaid and Medicare.  Governments - state and federal - have been forcing insurance into narrower markets by preventing the sale of insurance nation wide or even across state lines while requiring ever more elaborate coverage.  Insurance is no different than any other market product.  If the government regulated, controlled, price supported, dictated the nature of every hamburger in America and then restricted the sale of hamburgers by different vendors to specific territories, the entire market for hamburgers would be clumsy, distorted, over priced and under supplied.

      An actual free market in medical care and medical insurance with the minimum regulation to protect safety and against fraud would SOLVE every problem with American health care and insurance.  We have been moving away from the free market for over 50 years and more government and more centralized control will do nothing but make matters worse.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that makes too much sense.  lol 

        Yes, you are absolutely right.  What did Reagan say?  "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." 

        Obamacare expands government involvement. 

        Liberals will say that this redistributes income.  It actually does this by taking away from young people, healthy people, the middle class, and wealthy people.  I'm pretty sure that isn't the kind of redistribution most liberals support.  Should we be penalizing healthy people with higher premiums?  How much more of a financial burden can young people and the middle class take?

      2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
        wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You are exactly correct! Government control of the health care industry is what has been driving up medical expenses in the past. The whole medical industry is tightly regulated; the American Medical Association has influenced the government to regulate the medical field for the purpose of protecting and enriching the Doctors at the expense of all of us. The idea that Obamacare will save money is beyond naïve because it puts our medical dollars and the entire medical industry under the control of the government which is where the problem began!
        Here are some additional suggestions to lower healthcare expenses
        1) Allow other medical personal to perform simple and routine procedures that regulations insist only can be done by a doctor. This would free up the medical market to more competition.
        2) Reform state laws to allow the purchase of medical plans across state lines, thereby breaking up state monopolies and increasing competition among the states.
        3) Provide incentives for individuals not companies to purchase their own medical plans. The idea here is to put medical dollars in the control of the person using those dollars. This would allow the individual to purchase a plan more suitable for them and cause medical providers to compete for customers.
        4) Move away from prepaid medical plans and Incentivize high deductible low cost insurance in tandem with medical savings accounts. This would prevent overuse of medical care and save a great amount of money.

        1. profile image61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well Look At You!  All those good ideas and the first thing some lefty will say is were are the conservative ideas.  The only idea lefties ever have, have always had and never stray from is "Make the Government Bigger, More Powerful and Expand Its Control Over Things That No Government Before Has Tried To Control."

  2. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Here's another reason I don't believe Obamacare is a good idea, confidentiality issues and government ineptitude:

    "WASHINGTON –  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted Wednesday that it was possible convicted felons could be hired as ObamaCare ‘navigators,’ giving them access to personal information like Social Security numbers and addresses of anyone signing up for the program."

    I'm a teacher.  If I negligently allowed confidential information to fall into the hands of felons, I'd lose my job.  Nothing, other than questioning, seems to happen to those in charge of Obamacare.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11 … obamacare/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you mean "felons" or "ex-felons"?

      A little hard to swallow that someone could be barred from a reasonable job like navigator because they had a hit of weed one day a decade ago.  And harder to understand why someone in jail could hold a job requiring constant access to communication and information outside the jail.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You raise a good question.  Still, let me ask a few simple questions.

        Should your health care records be any less secure than your child's P.E. grade?  Nobody with a felony record could even get a job that had access to your child's P.E. grade, but we will give our social security number and other important information to the same guy?  Every year, I have to undergo HIPAA and FERPA training.  Do you think these people underwent the same training?

        When I was an administrator, I would have been fired for violating HIPAA and FERPA laws had I given access to student records to a person who had a felony conviction.  Was there any accountability for the people who run Obamacare?

        I doubt many known felons are working in hospitals, but then again, our government doesn't play by the same rules.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I don't know.  I've always heard reference to "paying their debt" by going to jail; you're saying the debt will NEVER be paid and they will be paying for it their entire lives.

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Where does this logic end?  If a felon serves his/her time, should he/she be allowed to be your child's teacher?  Should they be allowed to vote?  Does serving time really completely absolve the entire crime? 

            The article doesn't mention what kinds of felonies were committed, so before we say that these people should be given a second chance at everything it life, we might need to find out just exactly what they committed.

            I wouldn't want to give my social security number to a person who served prison time for a felony, period.  Your child's P.E. grade has more security than your own social security number?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know where or how to draw a line, but I am convinced that drawing it so that an ex-felon, with any felony conviction at all, cannot see a child's PE record is insane.

              These people MUST be re-integrated into society, and not only for their own good.  Ostracize them, allow them only menial, back breaking labor digging ditches somewhere, and they WILL become a repeat offender. 

              Let them back in and there is a reasonable hope they will not.

              1. profile image83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You may well be right.  I can see logic in what you are saying.

                Do you feel that, with all of the Obamacare rollout issues, it was a wise decision to hire felons?  There are already confidentiality concerns, and this is the way they start Obamacare?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Truthfully?  I have a hard time getting all worked up about my kid's PE score being available to a felon. 

                  But on top of that, you are operating under the assumption that every felon WILL use such information to cause harm, and that is exactly the attitude that I believe makes them repeat offenders in so many cases.  We have a very dismal record of rehabilitation, and this is one reason why.  They just are not accepted back into society but are held at arms length, forever outside and forever denied the opportunity to better themselves.

                  There are times when morality, ethics and fear just have to give way to reality, and I think this is one of them.  Yes, there will be damage, but not nearly as much as if we treat felons as animals to be kept outside in the cold.

                  1. profile image83
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I've already said that I may well agree with you about felons.  My only point is that not all Americans agree with both of us, and employing felons undermines the credibility of Obamacare with millions of Americans.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have to agree with wilderness here, just because someone committed a crime at some point (statistically probably a very minor one) does that mean they should be punished for the rest of their lives?

      Teachers are not allowed to be ex felons because they have access to children, not because they have access to PE records, personally I think even that is too strict and it should be handled on a case by case basis, if you were caught doing graffiti or smoking weed in college then that in itself should not rule you out of being a teacher twenty years later, on the other hand if you have a history of violence or abuse of children obviously you can't be allowed to work with them.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I never said teacher, not until the post right after yours.  School districts employ many people who do not work in schools and never have access to children.  These same employees often have access to records.  For the record, hospitals are pretty cautious when it comes to hiring felons too. 

        You assume that the felony committed is minor to make a point.  We don't really know what the nature of these crimes really was, because it's not mentioned in the article.

        I'm glad that you are back to this forum, but I sure would like an answer to a post you made earlier.  I'd like to see the debunking evidence you said existed when it comes to America having the highest life expectancy once violent deaths are taken into account.  I wrote:

        Where is the research denounced?  Specifically, what part of your source proves this?  Are you referring to the statement that says there was a controversial study conducted by the EPA?

  3. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    One of the major problems with Obamacare is the fact that many people, particularly young people, are going to have to pay more money to subsidize older, sicker people.  With so many young people struggling to make ends meet or even find a job, is that really a responsible way to pay for healthcare?  Our children will have to pay our debt, and now they have to pay more money for healthcare?


    USA Today had an interesting article:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 … n/3489751/

    Sure, for adults under 26, Obamacare offers a key perk: They can stay on their parents' plans. But for anyone 26 or older — a category I've just joined — the options are grim:

    You can forgo health insurance and fork over 1% of your income to Uncle Sam as a penalty.

    COLUMN: Sebelius, you're not fired!

    You can choose catastrophic-only coverage (if you're under 30), and be left in the lurch for most medical expenses below a certain high deductible — likely around $6,400.

    Or you can buy health insurance, but there's one catch. Instead of getting a good deal on insurance (because young adults are less likely to need health care treatment), expect to pony up more now — because you're subsidizing senior citizens.

 
working