jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (106 posts)

Obamacare ~ Supreme Court ~ Early as Monday

  1. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    "Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … care-case/

    Seems to me that the 10th amendment all by itself invalidates Obamacare. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    However, Congress and the Supreme Court have been ignoring the 10th amendment for decades. I'm putting the odds at 50:50 here.

    1. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
      Healthy Pursuitsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but I'd find the true news ANYplace but Fox.

      I do agree that Obamacare has some serious flaws, though.

      I also agree with people who say something must be done about our really, truly, incompetent, inefficient, expensive, ugly (well, you get the idea) healthcare situation. Our quality of care is below Cuba's for Pete's sake! And our infant mortality is so bad that 33 other countries are listed as having lower infant deaths than we are.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image85
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I deliberately picked Fox to see if I'd get a rise out of anybody about that. big_smile

        1. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
          Healthy Pursuitsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, you scamp! big_smile

          1. paradigmsearch profile image85
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            It's what I do. big_smile

    2. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad we've finally decided to join the rest of the developed world in offering universal health care!  Go Supreme Court!

      1. paradigmsearch profile image85
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Many times I equate today's attempts by our government to fight our corrupt medical profession as the same as when our government mounted a campaign to stop the gangsters' protection rackets in the Thirties.

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I'm expecting the Supreme Court to side with individual rights. If not, then apparent the Constitution truly isn't what it was meant to be.

    Obamacare isn't affordable health care and it has no hope in reforming "health care" in America.

    Whenever government puts their hands into something then the cost of living increase for EVERYONE not just some.

  3. American View profile image53
    American Viewposted 5 years ago

    One thing is for sure, no matter the ruling, one side will not be happy and the politics will ratchet up some more.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey AV, the politics is going to ratchet up anyways. lol

      1. American View profile image53
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil,

        We ain't seen nothing yet. Just when we think we have seen it all, they show us new ways

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yep. hmm

    2. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Gotta agree here. Damn politics gets in the way of any real progress. There are some good things in Obamacare, there are some bad things. Work together and produce something that helps America rather than thinking about how to use the 'politics' to gain power.

      But neither side will do that. I cannot see the court overturning the bill so Obama will tout this as a victory - however if it is turned over the Republicans will use it to try and use it to win the election.

      Come on - work for the people, not for the power....

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obamacare is dead. I don't think the politics will ratchet up. I think the progressives have been defeated for this generation.

      But, American View, I respect your opinion on it. I know everyone will be talking about it for 10 days, then Romney and Obama will settle in on some bogus lines, and we'll hear that nonsense for a few months.

      But, otherwise, the healthcare conversation is dead. Just go to the ER, that's going to be the Supreme Court and the House Republican message. And what? Can you argue with that?

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cited for irony.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I'm sure the payoffs to Clarence Thomas will have their effects.

    1. American View profile image53
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No more than Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Were they paid money by the insurance industry too?

        1. American View profile image53
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Was Clarence?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You can't seriously say that you are unaware of that.....

            Oh wait, FoxNews.

            Never mind.

            1. American View profile image53
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this
            2. tirelesstraveler profile image85
              tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So If Clarence did? What about Elena Kaggan, who helped write the healthcare bill, but wouldn't recuse herself?  Must have been some very interesting discussions on this thing.

  5. profile image0
    Deb Welchposted 5 years ago

    Cags - I read the FoxNews link and read an article in today's paper.  If I read it correctly - Obama seems to think that within the lines of the Constitution - the government can force people to acquire health insurance.  This they have to prove.  Medicaid will hit the roof - and each state will have a huge project on their hands if ObamaCare is approved.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And I am not expecting the Supreme Court to hold it in place. I think the Courts are going to tell them they cannot do it in this case.

      As I already said, I don't approve of the government getting involved in this part of society. It will only waste money, more resources and trillions unseen in the future.

  6. SimeyC profile image89
    SimeyCposted 5 years ago

    I cannot vote in the US (even though I pay a boat load of taxes) - I benefit in many ways from Obamacare - I cannot understand how both sides cannot sit around a table and work out what parts should be kept and what parts should be removed.

    The democrats will not shift and insist the whole bill must be accepted. The Republicans sit back and say it's not constitutional and will repeal the whole act despite the fact that millions of people are benefiting -and yet they have not said what they will do.

    Come on Washington - forget about Party lines - do what is right for once and work together! Yeah right!

    Both sides should be thrown out of power....

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!

    2. Wayne Brown profile image88
      Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You say that "millions of people are benefiting" but at who's expense are they benefiting?  Obama can talk all he wants about the zero debt load of this program but when a government hands out free medical coverage to 30+ million people, then someone has to pay for that ride.  Ultimately that cost will fall squarely on the backs of the middle-class taxpayers. The wealthy of America will bear some of that burden but it will not be felt like it will be by the middle-class of people who have to work for a living, have to pay these mandated premiums and have to accept the level of care which comes with it...then add on the additional costs of those who get the free ride.  This is simply another step deeper into the the social drowning of this country.  This decision by the Supreme Court seals that fate and throws the door wide open for ignoring the Constitution on future matters.  Forget about what it does to lower the potential quality of healthcare, attract the most talent workers in the discipline and deal with cost efficiencies.  The government has not touched anything and saw the costs go down...they will head up...way way up.  This is the tragedy of this decision and ultimately the irony of "providing affordable quality healthcare". WB

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. Jane Bovary profile image83
        Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What a  miserable attitude. You would rather see tens of thousands  of your fellow Americans suffer for the sake of saving some lousy tax dollars.

        Vast numbers of people die every year in the US of preventable causes because they don't have access to care. The number one cause of bankruptcy in your country is apparently due to illness and medical costs. You spend twice as much on healthcare as any other industrialised nation yet are ranked 37th in the world by the WHO.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yet, we have all that in Canada and we are doing better than the US is. And we live longer... It's not perfect, but nothing is.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    BTW, there seems to be a consensus among the TV commentators that the Supreme Court can pick and choose what parts of the bill are valid and which are not. This could be a very messy week indeed...

  8. tirelesstraveler profile image85
    tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago

    They won't hand down the ruling until Thursday.  Then they all leave for Europe and points beyond. They won't come back to work until October and the hoop la will have died down. That should tell us something,

  9. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://eyeoncitrus.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/clarencethomas.jpg?w=493&h=446

  10. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    There is an "investment" website out there that presumably never, ever gets it wrong. That site says the odds are 75% that the  individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional.

  11. rebekahELLE profile image87
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago
  12. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I wonder where the feathers in Washington are going to start flying now...

    1. Mighty Mom profile image89
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A bit overstated to say they're eating crow, but...

      (from WashPo)

      House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move.

      BOEHNER:

      "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

      ROMNEY:

      Mitt Romney told reporters shortly before noon that he would repeal the law his first day in office if elected. "ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today," he said.

      Want a little tar with them feathers, boys?
      lol

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Republicans have been saying since the beginning, this is a tax.

        1. Bob Zermop profile image86
          Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, it's a tax. A completely constitutional tax. NOW we can talk about getting it repealed.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How is he going to repeal it his first day in office?  By Executive Order?  Won't that make him a dictator to all those constitutional "experts" who just had a fit over Obama's recent Executive Order?

        1. American View profile image53
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, no executive order needed. He is going to opt the states out, just like Obama has done for his unions and business buddies. Opting out in in the healthcare law. So Romney will use the law against itself

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Awesome solution.

            Then the obese, diabetic, tobacco-smoking slovenly morons from the opted-out states can come to MY state, which has been planning to move forward with our without ACA.
            Why?
            Because addresseing the rapidly worsening health of our citizens, their lack of access to care (forget affordable, let's talk available) has to happen or the health care safety net, already full of holes, will break.

            Which is apparently what the Republicans really want.
            Viva private payers!

  13. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I've read the article about it and I now have one question.

    When does taxation become too much that it violates the Declaration of Independence?

    hmm

    1. paradigmsearch profile image85
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Probably anything over 100%. Though it will depend on the make-up of the Court at the time...

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really? I mean seriously. hmm

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I see a Constitutional problem here:

          Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances



          re·dress
             
          "Remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation): "the power to redress the grievances of our citizens"

          Where do the people file petition?  At the ballot box?  That does not make sense.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly why I am currently building Cagsil. To give people an honest way to redress government politics, processes and policies.

            This BS is just too much.

        2. paradigmsearch profile image85
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Split decisions make it blatantly clear to me that there is no such thing as jurisprudence anymore. It's all 100% politics. So whatever the Court's  politics are, that will be what the taxes are.

          1. American View profile image53
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            100% politics? Roberts voted with the left.

            1. Bob Zermop profile image86
              Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly. It's a lot of things, but it's a good show for the non-partisanship of the SCOTUS at least.

        3. tirelesstraveler profile image85
          tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This ruling is actually stunning. Think about it.  They constrained the commerce clause and said the mandate was permissible because it was a tax. Bringing the IRS into the mix. Also making Mr.Obama the highest taxing president of all time. Today the president is rejoicing, but in a few days when the ruling unravels there will be whaling and gnashing of teeth in DC. The court did what it was supposed to do in a circuitous fashion. They threw the politics back at the politicians and called a tax a tax.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But, that doesn't address my original question which I posed before the response you responded to, asked.

            When does too much taxation violate the Declaration of Independence?

            sad yikes

          2. Paul Wingert profile image78
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Americans are well known for their "I want, want, want, but don't want to pay for it" attitude. For the right wing out there, get over it and welcome to modern times. This isn't the late 18th Century.

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You're right it's not. But, it's also not suppose to be "stupidity in motion" either. yikes

          3. Bob Zermop profile image86
            Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Awesome post by tirelesstraveler, completely true. Roberts has made a genius move for conservatives.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, they will continue to argue that wealthy individuals and mega-corporations should continue to enjoy paying a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than do middle-class Americans, while simultaneously calling for an end to a relatively small tax that will only be applied to those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their health by purchasing health insurance.

              I'd say that's a winning argument for the party of personal responsibility!  roll

          4. tirelesstraveler profile image85
            tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Didn't realize when I wrote that comment the Roberts turned trader and blew the constitution out of the water.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You mean he decided based on law and not on political party. What exactly did he trade?

  14. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Obama campaign, new campaign song:

    There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don’t take it all.
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

    (If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
    (If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
    (If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
    (If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
    Taxman.

    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,


    Now my advice for those who die,
    Declare the pennies on your eyes,
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    And you’re working for no-one but me,
    (Taxman).

  15. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    It is a corporate court. Forced buy a private corporate product.

  16. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    social contract theory

    socialized health care (you pay more, you have the capacity to pay more)

    the price of belonging to a society and a certain government

    health is basic just like education, the gov't has the right to improve the overall Q of life

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol

      Thank you PDH! I desperately needed something to make me laugh. Much appreciated. lol lol lol lol lol

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The health care situation in the US is way par below, 17th among the more developed nations. Don't you think the government needs to do something about it? The fact is that we are under a government and we have a social unwritten contract with that gov't so that they can help improve the health situation of the people.

        When a parent doesn't send their children to school all things normal, there is truancy. What is the difference between education and health? We speak of freedom but we breathe the same air and we live in a territory.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure why you think that's so funny.  We pay for our government to facilitate the killing of people in other countries; why can't we pay for our government to facilitate better health care for our own people?

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because, it's pathetic(so sad it's funny) to think that "health" is anyone else's responsibility other than self.

          Yes, I understand that "health care" should be affordable. I have no problem with that idea. However, the government isn't going to make that happen. To think that it can when it cannot address other social issues such as poverty and homelessness, is completely absurd.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Health is absolutely a responsibility beyond the individual's.
            Or do you advocate abolishing entities like the CDC?

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Mighty Mom, your health is specifically your responsibility until it no longer can be done. Then it should fall on society to help pick up the tab.

              Until then, NO! it is not someone else's responsibility.
              Your question is moot because it's comparing apples to oranges. Why? Two distinct difference in responsibility.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How is it apples and oranges, Cags?
                My health either my personal responsibility or it's not.
                If it's mine, I do not require any government intervention, including a government agency to keep me healthy.

                Taxpayer dollars fund CDC. How can you sanction that waste?

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Apples=Individual Oranges=National/Societal.

                  Yes, but if you don't plan for the future of your life, then you will most likely have no ability to take care of the responsibility for end of life issues, which could range in the thousands of dollars a month, a day or a year for years.

                  That is why I said, when you are no longer able to take care of the responsibility of taking care of yourself, then it should fall upon the rest of society to help your end of life issues to be minimized as much as possible.

                  Mighty Mom, your argument here is completely foolish. There's some things which are beyond your control as a part of society, such as domestic attacks on you individually and/or foreign attacks from others.

                  Domestic attacks and foreign attacks are not something you can control. Having affordable health care because of the actions of others is necessary, but Obamacare isn't affordable health care. As explained- whenever the government gets involved in personal/individual matters such as this, then ALL related costs increase because they(government) got involved.

                  Yes, I know. yikes
                  I'm not. hmm

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "As explained- whenever the government gets involved in personal/individual matters such as this, then ALL related costs increase because they(government) got involved."

                    This is simply not true.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Mighty Mom is correct.  The CDC exists to protect our health.  Their mission statement:

                "Collaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats."

                The rest of it is here:  http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm

                Of course, everyone should take personal responsibility for their own health.  However, one cannot control everything, such as the drunk driver who puts a perfectly healthy person in the hospital resulting in thousands or even millions in medical bills for that one stupid act.  It is not laughable to believe it is cost effective and prudent for our government to provide certain services to its citizens that are either morally necessary or for the greater good of the country as a whole.

                No problem can be completely solved by government, but some things, such as the health of its citizens, can be helped by government involvement.  One good example is the government initiative to warn its citizens of the hazards of smoking.  No, it doesn't stop all people from smoking, but it has lowered the rate significantly.

                Anyway, my point is that PDH's statement is far from laughable; it reflects a rational and humane notion about the potential for government to help its citizens.  After all, that is why governments are formed in the first place.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This is on a national level. DUH!
                  Yes, and that would be one reason to have health care for yourself. Keep digging the hole you're standing in.
                  You're too funny! The government has NEVER been effective or efficient at handling the Economy, much less know what is best for society.
                  Really? roll Government cannot even operate itself. Much less help citizens find or get or receive affordable health care.
                  Of course they did. Too bad you don't know why? But are willingly to accept what you've been told.
                  Really? It's not rational. It's not actually humane either.
                  lol

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.  We obviously have a different view of the role and efficiency of government.  I have worked in both government and private sector jobs, and it is not true that the private sector is more efficient for all things.  Private companies' primary goal is to make a profit, so their efficiencies are directed toward their bottom line.  In the case of health care, that means situations such as prescribing a less desirable drug because it costs less, or ordering tests that cost more for the patient but provide greater profit for the company.

                    But, I can see it really won't matter what evidence is provided for some people, as their notion of government is warped and rigid and will not be changed by facts.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Of course they did. Too bad you don't know why? But are willingly to accept what you've been told

                    I picked this out because I'd like to see just one factual, well-reasoned response from you.  Please tell me why, since you are claiming I am ignorant on the subject.  I would like to be educated, with actual facts, of course.

    2. Jane Bovary profile image83
      Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's not laughable at all.  Any decent government should be obligated to provide a basic social infrastructure for it's citizens and that would, of course, include universal healthcare.

  17. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    So why can't an individual purchase health care across state lines, seeing as it is now a national issue?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Health insurance is currently regulated at the state level.  Would you prefer it be regulated at the federal level, because that is what would have to happen in order for it to be sold across state lines.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is not being regulated at the federal level, are you sure?

        U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli

        "The (health insurance) market is regulated at the federal level in very significant ways already," Verrilli told the chief justice.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 … z1z7Tmqlou

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This article explains it quite well.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 … uce-costs/

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            From the article:

            ""5/11/2012

            Right now, in nearly every state, insurance is regulated at the state level.

            nobody wants to make a major business investment in health insurance at a time when the entire regulatory landscape could be upended by the Supreme Court.""

            Haven't things been upended by the Supreme Court?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know.  I am not an expert on today's decision.  Why don't you explain it to me?  The article dated 5/11/12 explicitly states that "right now, in nearly ever state, insurance is regulated at the state level."

              1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am in the same situation. Why I asked if this would allow the purchase of policies across state lines.  I am curious?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't see how today's decision would affect that, but like I said, I am no expert.

  18. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Let's not jump the gun here to end of life.
    Let's talk about here and now.
    Let's talk about millions of Americans who want to take responsibility for their health today. But rack rate for doctors visits is out of their reach. So they go without.
    Rack rate for hospital care would bankrupt them in second.
    So they go without.

    There are only so many "go withouts" until NOT getting care escalates the type and amount of care you need. Which ends up even more expensive.
    And who pays?
    WE ALL PAY.

    This mandate IS about taking personal responsibility for your own health by carrying insurance so that you get preventive care and have protection against hospitalizations or major illness.

    I simply don't understand the resistance.
    It's a benefit to individuals and families and a boon to society.


    That is wrong.

  19. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 5 years ago

    Cagsil,

    Ordinarily I agree with you buddy.

    This time, I don't - not on all points.  Here are my objections:



    Looking to the rest of the world is what every member of our (albeit oversized and lacking in personal accountability themselves) federal government does - our policies and decisions have been either by the assistance and guidance of foreign nations, or a parroted copy of other countries for some time.  They're slightly modified, of course, to cater to the American people dependent on a wide range of variables, but the sentiment is there.

    Making America's health system higher quality and lower cost to the individual is going to be a matter of looking at countries whose health care systems work and making the necessary changes to adopt a working model.  Our system is not working, so what we need to do is see where similar countries to ours are doing it *right.*

    The basic problem I see is this:  Who should pay the price? The individual who spent upwards of $200,000 on their schooling and skills, the individual we look to for expertise and professional medical care, who is providing the service and thusly forging their own life and overcoming the costs of reaching the point of providing the service? Or, the individual who has an illness which needs attention, who is using the service, time, and expertise of their service provider?

    This is the problem I am seeing:  The process begins with the incredibly high cost of tuition for VITAL fields of study.  Anyone can go get a two year degree in creative writing and spend 20 to 40 grand to have a frivilous college education.  But doctors? Ten times that, easy.  Combine that with the kind of work being done - I consider their high rate of pay to be an offset for their tuition, but also for hazard pay.  It is from THIS, and unregulated pricing structures for medicine, and so much wasted time from people who don't NEED a doctor's attention but get it because every visit must be seen by a doctor, right?  The whole cycle needs picking apart and reworking.

  20. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 5 years ago

    Hrmph.  Don't know why I spent the time replying - looks like a fight and extreme labeling is all that was wanted here.

 
working