What's not to like about these steps to get Healthcare Reform going?

[Ravens 03 0]

What's not to like about these steps to get Healthcare Reform going?

 

It sure as shiat doesn't raise taxes another $730 BILLION!

 

=============================================

 

Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:

 

1) Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.

 

2) Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.

 

3) Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

 

4) Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual or lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.

 

5) Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

 

6) Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.

 

7) Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.

 

8) Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.

 

9) Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

 

10) Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.

 

11) Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

 

 

 

Scorecard: Speaker Pelosi's Government Takeover vs. GOP Common-Sense Solutions

 

Speaker Pelosi's Bill ............GOP Alternative

Job Losses

Up to 5.5 million ..........................0

 

Medicare Cuts

$500 billion .................................0

 

Tax Increases

$729.5 billion ..............................0

[gocolts 300]

:crickets:

[swamp dog 0]

how the fock do they do #1? nothing combined on that list will do that.

 

they have ideas on reforming health care? they've been fighting health care reform since TRUMAN. wake the fock up!

 

i'll spot you tort and the state-line argument above. good. do it. if that's what it takes to get the gop off its ass and do the REST of the meaningful reform.

 

but tort reform will only lower the tab about 2 percent...and the state line thing? lol...oh, silly child: the insurance industry is controlled by 2 or 3 major conglomerates. there is no competition. never has been. wake up. sniff the salts, dude.

 

erasing state lines won't matter shiat.

 

no wonder fox is so goddam popular. most the idiots in this country look at a list like that and listen to the bullshiat lies and think "duh, jee weez look at all them thar numbers in that republican plan! hell, there's gotta be 8 or 9 steps thar!! theyz sure want to get things done. god bless em!!!!"

 

and please: the couple of good ideas on there (pre-existing condition, for one) were dem ideas long before the corporate wh0res on the right threw that bone out there.

 

that list above is classic--classic--sitting on your ass all day playing with star wars figurines and then frantically shuffling papers for 10 seconds when your boss (in this case voters) walk by your cubicle.

 

if you think any republican is truly for health care reform that means something for the working stiffs of this country, i've got a bridge to sell you.

[swamp dog 0]

promoting healthier lifestyles? lol...wellness plans have been in place with all major insurance companies for about two focking decades.

 

jesus, you people can't really be this uninformed and so easily manipulated...can you? please don't answer.

[jerryskids 7,083]

swampy, nobody could possibly be this stupid and still find the keyboard with their fingers, so I'm left to conclude that you are an alias. A good one, though.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

no wonder fox is so goddam popular. most the idiots in this country look at a list like that and listen to the bullshiat lies and think "duh, jee weez look at all them thar numbers in that republican plan! hell, there's gotta be 8 or 9 steps thar!! theyz sure want to get things done. god bless em!!!!"

 

People who look at that list and see some good ideas may not be as smart as you..........ya know, someone who believes:

 

1. Obama will cut $500 billion in waste from medicare. (why hasn't this been implemented to lower his record deficits)

2. Obama can give healthcare to everyone and lower costs.

3. The Govt can run healthare better than the private sector.

4. The Govt can provide better healthcare than the private sector.

 

Ignore the fact the Govt has never accomplished a single thing above in any other healthcare program.....Obama sez so, so Swamp thinks it's gonna happen.

[BLS 314]

how the fock do they do #1? nothing combined on that list will do that.

 

they have ideas on reforming health care? they've been fighting health care reform since TRUMAN. wake the fock up!

 

i'll spot you tort and the state-line argument above. good. do it. if that's what it takes to get the gop off its ass and do the REST of the meaningful reform.

 

but tort reform will only lower the tab about 2 percent...and the state line thing? lol...oh, silly child: the insurance industry is controlled by 2 or 3 major conglomerates. there is no competition. never has been. wake up. sniff the salts, dude.

 

erasing state lines won't matter shiat.

 

no wonder fox is so goddam popular. most the idiots in this country look at a list like that and listen to the bullshiat lies and think "duh, jee weez look at all them thar numbers in that republican plan! hell, there's gotta be 8 or 9 steps thar!! theyz sure want to get things done. god bless em!!!!"

 

and please: the couple of good ideas on there (pre-existing condition, for one) were dem ideas long before the corporate wh0res on the right threw that bone out there.

 

that list above is classic--classic--sitting on your ass all day playing with star wars figurines and then frantically shuffling papers for 10 seconds when your boss (in this case voters) walk by your cubicle.

 

if you think any republican is truly for health care reform that means something for the working stiffs of this country, i've got a bridge to sell you.

 

 

This is why liberals are stupid.

You don't think competition will lower costs?

Do cell phone plans get cheaper every year? Better phones? Better features?

Why do you think that is? Competition. Fuckin ding dongs.

[MDC 7,881]

What's not to like about these steps to get Healthcare Reform going?

 

It sure as shiat doesn't raise taxes another $730 BILLION!

 

=============================================

 

Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:

 

1) Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.

 

2) Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.

 

3) Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

 

4) Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual or lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.

 

5) Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

 

6) Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.

 

7) Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.

 

8) Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.

 

9) Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

 

10) Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.

 

11) Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

Scorecard: Speaker Pelosi's Government Takeover vs. GOP Common-Sense Solutions

 

Speaker Pelosi's Bill ............GOP Alternative

Job Losses

Up to 5.5 million ..........................0

 

Medicare Cuts

$500 billion .................................0

 

Tax Increases

$729.5 billion ..............................0

 

1. Lowering premiums is a goal, not a plan.

2. How is this different from the Dem plan to prevent insurers from declining people with pre-existing conditions?

3. Sure, but this will have no effect on costs.

4. Good idea.

5. Sure, but again, I think the effect on costs will be negligible.

6. Are states really waiting for 'incentive payments' to lower costs and the uninsured?

7. Again, good idea but nothing that will significantly reduce costs.

8. This has nothing to do with reducing costs or expanding coverage.

9. HOW? "Promote healthier lifestyles" is a GOAL, not a PLAN.

10. Good idea - I don't know why med savings accounts haven't caught on.

11. Parents can already cover dependents until they're 23.

 

This plan reads like exactly what it is - a hodge-podge of half-baked ideas intended to look like a plan. Some of these proposals are good and probably will make it into whatever plan Obama eventually signs into law, but this is not "reform". You could pass everything in this plan tomorrow and it would have almost no effect on healthcare costs. I almost wish we would pass this plan so that a few years down the road we could put the rest the retarded idea that market-based reform is going to lower healthcare costs.

 

I have excellent coverage and won't benefit at all from the plans in Congress, but let's get real here. Did the GOP pass healthcare reform when it controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years? Did healthcare even once come up as an issue during any of the Republican debates?

 

The Republican party is not interested in healthcare but they're backed into the corner of coming up with something because they don't want to be seen as obstructionists or anti-reform.

[Chronic Husker 86]

This is why liberals are stupid.

The guy that plans on moving an established crazy liar across country and plans to keep her kids away from their established crazy father (even though said woman isn't remotely commited to that idea) is lecturing us on who is stupid in this country.

 

That's rich.

[Ravens 03 0]

This is why liberals are stupid.

You don't think competition will lower costs?

Do cell phone plans get cheaper every year? Better phones? Better features?

Why do you think that is? Competition. Fuckin ding dongs.

 

Some things even libs don't understand.

 

Or admit to understanding.

[nobody 2,882]

I would rather the country just outlaw healthcare for everyone than pay for swamp dog's healthcare costs.

[VikesFan 1]

Most of the Republican plan won't work. It's a better plan than Obama's, but it still caters to special interests and doesn't address the main reasons why costs continue to go up. They get one thing right with selling insurance across state lines, but not much more. Fixing healthcare isn't a simple thing, because there are a lot of reasons why it's broke, and you are going to have to at one point start addressing the root cause instead of bandaiding it with subsidies. Here's what will fix healthcare:

 

1) Allow selling of insurance across state lines. That's been covered, so no reason to bring it up.

2) Allow insurance to go back to being not-for-profit.

3) Eliminiate the FDA. I can't say this enough, but the FDA is one of the big reasons why costs continue to go up and up and up. It costs nearly 1/2 billion dollars to bring a new drug to the market, and that is largely due to the FDA. What's sad is that people don't realize that this government monolith is an absolute failure that is unable to detect bad drugs and stop them before it hits the market. There have been plenty of Vioxes and what not to prove it. Medical decisions do not belong in the hands of the government, they belong in the hands of me and my doctror. I should be able to take something like Viox as long as my doctor makes me aware of the risks. That's my decision, not uncle sams or anyone else, and my doctor's job is to make sure I know the potential risks/rewards with whatever gets put in my body. This, by the way, will do far more to allow people to make decisions that let them live healthy than anything else. The government has no business telling people what drugs they can and cannot take. What the government should be doing is ensuring that drug makers/doctors are adequately disclosing the risks/rewards to this process.

4) Reform patent laws. Two types of reform needs to be had. Reform that prevents pharmaceutical companies from holding monopolies on drugs for unnatural periods of time simply because they reformulate the 4 hour pill to a 6 hour pill. At the same time, laws need to allow pharmaceuticals to be able to make a profit off of stuff already non-patentable if it's found to do something new. There has been plenty of speculation/research that suggests that some cures for cancer can be found in common products, but since it is so expensive to research, and there's no profit motive to do it, nothing is ever done.

5) Make pharmaceuticals and the medical profession go non-profit.

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. Many doctors bring in millions per year, just about all make well over 100k. This is because it is very difficult to get into the profession, and inspite of this, there are plenty of incompetent doctors.

7) Prosecute fraud. Throw people in jail. Make it public and do it quickly and have the resources available to do it at a moments notice. If a corporation covers up the results of a drug to market it, make it a capital offense if people who take it die from it.

8) Prosecute conflicts of interest. People don't understand just how many conflicts of interest there are in the medical profession. Doctors own medical businesses and refer patients to them who they know will be lucrative, or they order tests that they know are unneeded because insurance will pay for it.

9) Require publishing of pricing. A procedure at lab A can cost $30, while the same one at lab B costs $300. This is because the industry is presently not allowed to publish their prices. This should be required. Competition in this area alone will bring down costs.

10) Transfer responsibility back to the insured. Insurance companies have a right to charge more for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Auto companies do it all the time. If I drive like a maniac, I'm going to pay more for insurance. The same is true about medical insurance. I live a fairly healthy lifestyle. Insurance companies make good money off of me because I'm not at the DR. very often. Yet my rates are higher because of the 350 pound smoking fatties that are all around us. Those folks need to be paying more. A tiered system is very applicable, allowing those of us who work out and eat right access to the lower cost medical care that we deserve.

11) Encourage major medical insurance over traditional plans with HSAs to pay for the minor things. The big problem with the present plans is it transfers all incentives for being healthy away from the insured.

12) Allow refusal of care. This one is going to hurt, but I'm growing tired of hearing that everyone is entitled to great, low cost, medicine. That's nothing more than a way to hide socialism. It's not true, and it is another thing that is bankrupting the system. ERs have a right to say no when an illegal comes through for care. They have a right to say no to someone who cannot afford it. You can certainly allow for bartering of services and what not, but expecting hospitals to pick up that bill is ridiculous. If you cannot afford care, you do not get it.

13) Instituted tiered coverages plans... kind of like auto and home owners... you can opt for basic coverage that covers basic medical services, or coverage that covers much more. One of the biggest drains on costs are older people. The problem is that in their frail states, they have more things go wrong. Much of this would have killed them 50 years ago, but we can treat it now at a very high cost. The problem I have with this is that these services should optional. If you have the money to pay for them, great, but if you don't, you are not entitled to them. With a tiered plan, people can opt for basic coverage. It becomes their decision as to the price they put on their own lives. People have long forced these issues into the hands of insurance companies and wonder why it is that some of them turn around and drop them. Life is not free. Those who are rich are going to live longer as they can afford the care. Those who are not are not entitled to this. I know this sucks, but this is reality. It's been that way for thousands of years. Many of the things here will drop prices substantially, which will make things more affordable.

14) Allow insurance companies to drop coverage on someone for fraud.

15) Eliminate subsidies. Cannot say this one enough, but subsidies do not lower costs. They hide them. Supply and demand will do wonders for bringing down costs of medicine. Look at something like lasik surgery. Insurance never covered that, and so naturally the cost dropped on that until the average person could afford it.

 

 

What is funny is that with the exception of giving the government the ability to prosecute fraud (which is what their responsibility should have been from the start), the bulk of this eliminates government presence which reduces costs. It actually addresses the heart of what is going on with medicine and why it is getting so expensive. This plan won't cost the consumers or the government much at all. It will save money, which will in the long run drive down costs. I cannot believe that people are unable to tie together the fact that costs go up and up while medical companies, doctors, and insurers make more and more. The whole system is designed so that these groups can make easy money off of it. It's unstable from the start and it has to come to an end. Both the democrats and republicans have special interests in mind, which is why their plans will not work. They involve subsidies which hide costs. I don't like either plan, as neither address the roots of what is wrong in the medical industry. I've worked in parmaceutical. I have relatives who work in hospitals as well. It is so easy to see why costs are rising, but no one wants to fix those b/c it will hurt the people that keep politicians in office.

[swamp dog 0]

This is why liberals are stupid.

You don't think competition will lower costs?

Do cell phone plans get cheaper every year? Better phones? Better features?

Why do you think that is? Competition. Fuckin ding dongs.

 

 

you silly, uneducated, head-in-the-clouds child:

 

http://www.oligopolywatch.com/

 

 

phones being "cheap"? lol...hey, why don't we see those chad-alltel commericials anymore? because (tada) those companies have been gobbled up by giant conglomerates and now about 2-3 companies control the entire market. oh, but that leads to "cheaper prices." forgot!

 

http://www.billshrink.com/blog/mobile-cell...an-cost-markup/

 

 

i'm not sure why i waste my time talking about such advanced concepts with you folks.

 

get a clue.

 

history has clearly shown repeatedly that when government gets out of the way of business (guilded age, 1920s, 1990s, etc.) massive, short-term "growth" (mostly in CEO pay) results followed by a catastrophic collapse of the entire economic system.

 

every. time.

 

spin away, spin away. but study your history.

 

and vikes: that takes a lot of balls to say you worked for a pharm company yet the government is the problem. lol...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Vikesfan seems to dislike profits.

[VikesFan 1]

Vikesfan seems to dislike profits.

 

I have no problems with profits. What I dislike is no competition. What I dislike is fraud. What I dislike is conflict of interest. These things are driving profits to excessive levels. I'm not saying get rid of profits. I'm saying that the playing field needs to be leveled. There are several things I mentioned in there that would help profits such as part of the patent law reform and getting rid of the FDA. I could remove the non-for-profit comments in there and I'd be fine with the results. The insurance industry alone is probably the one place where that makes more sense than anything else. There was a time, by the way, when it was not for profit. It isn't a coincidence that costs were lower back then too.

 

 

Swamp Dog:

 

I never said the pharmaceuticals weren't part of the problem, just read my proposal. I have no love for that industry. But to pretend its one or the other is kind of dumb actually. There's a reason I mentioned reforming patent laws, and there is a reason I mentioned getting rid of the FDA. Both are reasons for the excessive cost of medicine. The cost of medical care is a multi-headed monster. Part of that is government, part is insurance, part is pharmaceuticals, part are hospitals, part are doctors, and part are patients. Everyone has ways to game the system, which leads to higher costs for the rest of us.

[BLS 314]

you silly, uneducated, head-in-the-clouds child:

 

http://www.oligopolywatch.com/

 

 

phones being "cheap"? lol...hey, why don't we see those chad-alltel commericials anymore? because (tada) those companies have been gobbled up by giant conglomerates and now about 2-3 companies control the entire market. oh, but that leads to "cheaper prices." forgot!

 

http://www.billshrink.com/blog/mobile-cell...an-cost-markup/

 

 

i'm not sure why i waste my time talking about such advanced concepts with you folks.

 

get a clue.

 

history has clearly shown repeatedly that when government gets out of the way of business (guilded age, 1920s, 1990s, etc.) massive, short-term "growth" (mostly in CEO pay) results followed by a catastrophic collapse of the entire economic system.

 

every. time.

 

spin away, spin away. but study your history.

 

and vikes: that takes a lot of balls to say you worked for a pharm company yet the government is the problem. lol...

 

 

You can't be this dumb.

[KSB2424 3,173]

I would rather the country just outlaw healthcare for everyone than pay for swamp dog's healthcare costs.

 

That dude is an oddball.

 

But this really is simple. Instead of the number one point being government control, it should be doing no harm first. So let us do the things that are easily implemented and cost little or nothing for the gov't. That's why points 3 thru 7 should implemented along with steps to help reduce waste in gov't plans that already exist like medicare and medicaid.

 

So we take bonafide obvious steps to increase competition (which helps lower costs), expand coverage, and reduce costs for already existing 'nets' that catch the needy. Plus it costs little or nothing to the gov't in a time of record deficits.

 

How can you argue with that?

[Strike 6,017]

Most of the Republican plan won't work. It's a better plan than Obama's, but it still caters to special interests and doesn't address the main reasons why costs continue to go up. They get one thing right with selling insurance across state lines, but not much more. Fixing healthcare isn't a simple thing, because there are a lot of reasons why it's broke, and you are going to have to at one point start addressing the root cause instead of bandaiding it with subsidies. Here's what will fix healthcare:

 

1) Allow selling of insurance across state lines. That's been covered, so no reason to bring it up.

2) Allow insurance to go back to being not-for-profit.

3) Eliminiate the FDA. I can't say this enough, but the FDA is one of the big reasons why costs continue to go up and up and up. It costs nearly 1/2 billion dollars to bring a new drug to the market, and that is largely due to the FDA. What's sad is that people don't realize that this government monolith is an absolute failure that is unable to detect bad drugs and stop them before it hits the market. There have been plenty of Vioxes and what not to prove it. Medical decisions do not belong in the hands of the government, they belong in the hands of me and my doctror. I should be able to take something like Viox as long as my doctor makes me aware of the risks. That's my decision, not uncle sams or anyone else, and my doctor's job is to make sure I know the potential risks/rewards with whatever gets put in my body. This, by the way, will do far more to allow people to make decisions that let them live healthy than anything else. The government has no business telling people what drugs they can and cannot take. What the government should be doing is ensuring that drug makers/doctors are adequately disclosing the risks/rewards to this process.

4) Reform patent laws. Two types of reform needs to be had. Reform that prevents pharmaceutical companies from holding monopolies on drugs for unnatural periods of time simply because they reformulate the 4 hour pill to a 6 hour pill. At the same time, laws need to allow pharmaceuticals to be able to make a profit off of stuff already non-patentable if it's found to do something new. There has been plenty of speculation/research that suggests that some cures for cancer can be found in common products, but since it is so expensive to research, and there's no profit motive to do it, nothing is ever done.

5) Make pharmaceuticals and the medical profession go non-profit.

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. Many doctors bring in millions per year, just about all make well over 100k. This is because it is very difficult to get into the profession, and inspite of this, there are plenty of incompetent doctors.

7) Prosecute fraud. Throw people in jail. Make it public and do it quickly and have the resources available to do it at a moments notice. If a corporation covers up the results of a drug to market it, make it a capital offense if people who take it die from it.

8) Prosecute conflicts of interest. People don't understand just how many conflicts of interest there are in the medical profession. Doctors own medical businesses and refer patients to them who they know will be lucrative, or they order tests that they know are unneeded because insurance will pay for it.

9) Require publishing of pricing. A procedure at lab A can cost $30, while the same one at lab B costs $300. This is because the industry is presently not allowed to publish their prices. This should be required. Competition in this area alone will bring down costs.

10) Transfer responsibility back to the insured. Insurance companies have a right to charge more for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Auto companies do it all the time. If I drive like a maniac, I'm going to pay more for insurance. The same is true about medical insurance. I live a fairly healthy lifestyle. Insurance companies make good money off of me because I'm not at the DR. very often. Yet my rates are higher because of the 350 pound smoking fatties that are all around us. Those folks need to be paying more. A tiered system is very applicable, allowing those of us who work out and eat right access to the lower cost medical care that we deserve.

11) Encourage major medical insurance over traditional plans with HSAs to pay for the minor things. The big problem with the present plans is it transfers all incentives for being healthy away from the insured.

12) Allow refusal of care. This one is going to hurt, but I'm growing tired of hearing that everyone is entitled to great, low cost, medicine. That's nothing more than a way to hide socialism. It's not true, and it is another thing that is bankrupting the system. ERs have a right to say no when an illegal comes through for care. They have a right to say no to someone who cannot afford it. You can certainly allow for bartering of services and what not, but expecting hospitals to pick up that bill is ridiculous. If you cannot afford care, you do not get it.

13) Instituted tiered coverages plans... kind of like auto and home owners... you can opt for basic coverage that covers basic medical services, or coverage that covers much more. One of the biggest drains on costs are older people. The problem is that in their frail states, they have more things go wrong. Much of this would have killed them 50 years ago, but we can treat it now at a very high cost. The problem I have with this is that these services should optional. If you have the money to pay for them, great, but if you don't, you are not entitled to them. With a tiered plan, people can opt for basic coverage. It becomes their decision as to the price they put on their own lives. People have long forced these issues into the hands of insurance companies and wonder why it is that some of them turn around and drop them. Life is not free. Those who are rich are going to live longer as they can afford the care. Those who are not are not entitled to this. I know this sucks, but this is reality. It's been that way for thousands of years. Many of the things here will drop prices substantially, which will make things more affordable.

14) Allow insurance companies to drop coverage on someone for fraud.

15) Eliminate subsidies. Cannot say this one enough, but subsidies do not lower costs. They hide them. Supply and demand will do wonders for bringing down costs of medicine. Look at something like lasik surgery. Insurance never covered that, and so naturally the cost dropped on that until the average person could afford it.

What is funny is that with the exception of giving the government the ability to prosecute fraud (which is what their responsibility should have been from the start), the bulk of this eliminates government presence which reduces costs. It actually addresses the heart of what is going on with medicine and why it is getting so expensive. This plan won't cost the consumers or the government much at all. It will save money, which will in the long run drive down costs. I cannot believe that people are unable to tie together the fact that costs go up and up while medical companies, doctors, and insurers make more and more. The whole system is designed so that these groups can make easy money off of it. It's unstable from the start and it has to come to an end. Both the democrats and republicans have special interests in mind, which is why their plans will not work. They involve subsidies which hide costs. I don't like either plan, as neither address the roots of what is wrong in the medical industry. I've worked in parmaceutical. I have relatives who work in hospitals as well. It is so easy to see why costs are rising, but no one wants to fix those b/c it will hurt the people that keep politicians in office.

 

Some great ideas here. Don't agree with all of them, especially 10, but overall a good set of guidelines that would be a great starting point for REAL discussion by congress and the Messiah. Unfortunately, most will never see the light of day.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I have no problems with profits.

 

No, you just want entire industries to stop making them.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

swampy, nobody could possibly be this stupid and still find the keyboard with their fingers, so I'm left to conclude that you are an alias. A good one, though.

[surferskin 31]

I would rather the country just outlaw healthcare for everyone than pay for swamp dog's healthcare costs.

[MedStudent 56]

Most of the Republican plan won't work. It's a better plan than Obama's, but it still caters to special interests and doesn't address the main reasons why costs continue to go up. They get one thing right with selling insurance across state lines, but not much more. Fixing healthcare isn't a simple thing, because there are a lot of reasons why it's broke, and you are going to have to at one point start addressing the root cause instead of bandaiding it with subsidies. Here's what will fix healthcare:

 

3) Eliminiate the FDA. I can't say this enough, but the FDA is one of the big reasons why costs continue to go up and up and up. It costs nearly 1/2 billion dollars to bring a new drug to the market, and that is largely due to the FDA. What's sad is that people don't realize that this government monolith is an absolute failure that is unable to detect bad drugs and stop them before it hits the market. There have been plenty of Vioxes and what not to prove it. Medical decisions do not belong in the hands of the government, they belong in the hands of me and my doctror. I should be able to take something like Viox as long as my doctor makes me aware of the risks. That's my decision, not uncle sams or anyone else, and my doctor's job is to make sure I know the potential risks/rewards with whatever gets put in my body. This, by the way, will do far more to allow people to make decisions that let them live healthy than anything else. The government has no business telling people what drugs they can and cannot take. What the government should be doing is ensuring that drug makers/doctors are adequately disclosing the risks/rewards to this process.

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. Many doctors bring in millions per year, just about all make well over 100k. This is because it is very difficult to get into the profession, and inspite of this, there are plenty of incompetent doctors.

 

Just wanted to comment on these 2:

 

3) Eliminate the FDA. Are you crazy? the FDA are the ones that ask for more tests on products. Without the FDA these companies would be promoting products that don't even work. Did you ever hear of thalidomide? A supposive wonder drug in the early 60's? women who took it gave birth to babies with flippers. The FDA would not approve it saying it needed more studies. In Europe thousands of thalidomide babies were born.

 

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. - what barriers do you speak of? You want to allow dumb people to become doctors? Somehow this will improve doctors? The only barrier i can see that would attract more doctors is to make medical education free. That would bring in more people. But i wouldn't cut out any training or make it easier to become a doctor. And what's the matter with a doctor making 100,000+? there are not a lot of doctor's making a million a year. And most of those are doing plastic surgery to rich people anyways so do not matter in regards to health plan reform.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You want to allow dumb people to become doctors?

 

I don't. Is there a petition started to keep you out of the profession?

[VikesFan 1]

Just wanted to comment on these 2:

 

3) Eliminate the FDA. Are you crazy? the FDA are the ones that ask for more tests on products. Without the FDA these companies would be promoting products that don't even work. Did you ever hear of thalidomide? A supposive wonder drug in the early 60's? women who took it gave birth to babies with flippers. The FDA would not approve it saying it needed more studies. In Europe thousands of thalidomide babies were born.

 

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. - what barriers do you speak of? You want to allow dumb people to become doctors? Somehow this will improve doctors? The only barrier i can see that would attract more doctors is to make medical education free. That would bring in more people. But i wouldn't cut out any training or make it easier to become a doctor. And what's the matter with a doctor making 100,000+? there are not a lot of doctor's making a million a year. And most of those are doing plastic surgery to rich people anyways so do not matter in regards to health plan reform.

3) The FDA is a massive monolithic organization that is more tied down to political consequences, and it's incompetent as well, missing as many thalidomides as it catches. The FDA refuses to investiage aspertame, for instance, which makes up about 75% of it's approved product complaints. Nor does it look at MSG despite plenty of evidence that it causes problems too. The FDA is nothing more than a pretense for the government to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. It has no constitutional backing, might I add. The easily solution to your thalidomide example is to require publication of all of the research on a product. Doctors, patients, eductated people, and what not can all access it and read the results. That will do more to expose teh thalidomides of the world than trusting them into the hands of a corrput government organization who is in bed with the people it supposedly regulates... and might I add, going back to my fraud points, if negative results are not published, then you prosecute the fraud.... HARD.

 

6) There are already plenty of dumb doctors. If it wasn't for their nurses, most doctors would be out of jobs due to malpractice. The only thing the barriers to entry do is premit people with less resources to get in. Doctors today don't do research, nor do they really work with patients. They are order takers who give out orders, and sadly, more often than people would like to admit, those orders have more to do with their compensation for writting the script than for what the patient needs.

[Frank M 181]

6) There are already plenty of dumb doctors. If it wasn't for their nurses, most doctors would be out of jobs due to malpractice. The only thing the barriers to entry do is premit people with less resources to get in. Doctors today don't do research, nor do they really work with patients. They are order takers who give out orders, and sadly, more often than people would like to admit, those orders have more to do with their compensation for writting the script than for what the patient needs.

 

Do you know the difference between fact and opinion? You are wrong on virtually every count here. I do research in a large hospital and work with many MDs.

[MedStudent 56]

If it wasn't for their nurses, most doctors would be out of jobs due to malpractice.

 

Thats classic. Let me guess, your wife or sister is a nurse.

[patweisers44 865]

6) Reduce the barriers to entry for becoming a nurse or medical doctor. - what barriers do you speak of? You want to allow dumb people to become doctors? Somehow this will improve doctors? The only barrier i can see that would attract more doctors is to make medical education free. That would bring in more people. But i wouldn't cut out any training or make it easier to become a doctor. And what's the matter with a doctor making 100,000+? there are not a lot of doctor's making a million a year. And most of those are doing plastic surgery to rich people anyways so do not matter in regards to health plan reform.

You know someone is gonna take a shot at you regarding this comment...just a heads up.

[cmh6476 1,126]

count me in

[jerryskids 7,083]

Medstudent, a philosophical question: a new drug is developed which, based on preliminary results, indicates a good success rate in curing, say, stage 4 pancreatic cancer. The FDA now requires a double blind study. Is it morally acceptable to deny 1/2 of the people in the study a potential cure? In general, is it morally acceptable to deny anyone with this illness the option of taking this drug?

[Frank M 181]

Medstudent, a philosophical question: a new drug is developed which, based on preliminary results, indicates a good success rate in curing, say, stage 4 pancreatic cancer. The FDA now requires a double blind study. Is it morally acceptable to deny 1/2 of the people in the study a potential cure? In general, is it morally acceptable to deny anyone with this illness the option of taking this drug?

 

I'd say that it's probably a good idea to determine whether or not the drug kills more people than it cures or whether it cures pancreatic cancer but causes brain cancer. So, I say yes, it's easily morally acceptable to deny an unproven drug.

[jerryskids 7,083]

I'd say that it's probably a good idea to determine whether or not the drug kills more people than it cures or whether it cures pancreatic cancer but causes brain cancer. So, I say yes, it's easily morally acceptable to deny an unproven drug.

In my scenario, the person is terminally ill. They would have long ago died from pancreatic cancer before they died from brain cancer. Surely you see this, are you just being argumentative?

[MedStudent 56]

Medstudent, a philosophical question: a new drug is developed which, based on preliminary results, indicates a good success rate in curing, say, stage 4 pancreatic cancer. The FDA now requires a double blind study. Is it morally acceptable to deny 1/2 of the people in the study a potential cure? In general, is it morally acceptable to deny anyone with this illness the option of taking this drug?

 

Jerry, I think the main purpose of the FDA should be to determine the safety of a drug. Once the drug is deemed safe or its at least its risks are established it proceeds to the double blind test. In a life saving situation, i believe the patient should be allowed to try this treatment (good luck paying for it though). I think there are some lawsuits winding their way through the courts arguing that its a patients constutional right to be able to try these treatments prior to FDA approval.

 

You don't want to return to the days of miracle elixirs sold by the side of a road but in a life saving situation I know I would want my parents or children to be able to try something that showed some signs of working.

 

Making a drug company prove a drugs efficacy is a minor role of the FDA in my mind, secondary to showing the dangers of a drug. I'm not saying the FDA is perfect, I am saying that they are necessary to perform certain functions. And I think eliminating the FDA would set medicine backwards.

[Frank M 181]

In my scenario, the person is terminally ill. They would have long ago died from pancreatic cancer before they died from brain cancer. Surely you see this, are you just being argumentative?

 

I understand your point and am not trying to be argumentative. I am saying that a drug needs to be tested thoroughly before it is used clinically. In that situation, yes, you'd probably be so eager to live that you would want to have this drug, and in many cases, patients with terminal cancer are enrolled in clinical studies to test unproven drugs and therapies. But you start giving a drug that shows promise in the lab for curing cancer only to have it kill people, do you realize what kibnd of firestorm that ignites? The "yeah, but they were going to die anyways" argument won't fly with people who had an expectation of seeing their loved ones live.

[jerryskids 7,083]

Jerry, I think the main purpose of the FDA should be to determine the safety of a drug. Once the drug is deemed safe or its at least its risks are established it proceeds to the double blind test. In a life saving situation, i believe the patient should be allowed to try this treatment (good luck paying for it though). I think there are some lawsuits winding their way through the courts arguing that its a patients constutional right to be able to try these treatments prior to FDA approval.

 

You don't want to return to the days of miracle elixirs sold by the side of a road but in a life saving situation I know I would want my parents or children to be able to try something that showed some signs of working.

 

Making a drug company prove a drugs efficacy is a minor role of the FDA in my mind, secondary to showing the dangers of a drug. I'm not saying the FDA is perfect, I am saying that they are necessary to perform certain functions. And I think eliminating the FDA would set medicine backwards.

You answered my question, and despite my wording, I am not advocating the total abolition of the FDA. But to (my interpretation of) Vikes' point, the FDA is a huge cog in the health care machine, and analyzing them, their methods, their costs, their impact... I don't hear discussed a whole lot.

 

I pretty much think we do most everything better than the Euros. I'm not a doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, and as such I think there may be a lot to learn from the way they approve new drugs. It seems that if we save one million lives, but one life is lost, we fixate on the lost life. I know it sounds Machiavellian, perhaps it is... anyway, my main point is that we are not even considering one of the primary cost/effectiveness factors in the system.

[MedStudent 56]

It seems that if we save one million lives, but one life is lost, we fixate on the lost life. I know it sounds Machiavellian, perhaps it is... anyway, my main point is that we are not even considering one of the primary cost/effectiveness factors in the system.

 

i agree with this. sometimes a good drug gets bad publicity for a few deaths but it may have prevented more deaths than it caused. Then Doctors are afraid to prescribe it. Blame the lawyers.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

i agree with this. sometimes a good drug gets bad publicity for a few deaths but it may have prevented more deaths than it caused. Then Doctors are afraid to prescribe it. Blame the lawyers.

 

I do.

 

If I have to watch one more commercial from these asshats, I might just go kill myself.

I swear that those fockers and the other "Lawfirms" like them are going to be the death of us all.

[Greedo 13]

This is why liberals are stupid.

You don't think competition will lower costs?

Do cell phone plans get cheaper every year? Better phones? Better features?

Why do you think that is? Competition. Fuckin ding dongs.

 

 

Some things even libs don't understand.

 

Or admit to understanding.

 

There are 50 different sets of laws regarding health care - it's not just a simple process to say "sell across state lines." It's a gross oversimplification.

 

2) Allow insurance to go back to being not-for-profit.

 

This would go a long way.

 

Some great ideas here. Don't agree with all of them, especially 10, but overall a good set of guidelines that would be a great starting point for REAL discussion by congress and the Messiah. Unfortunately, most will never see the light of day.

 

I agree with you on both counts strike. And SCOTUS' recent decision regarding campaign financing will give this hope even less of a chance than before.

[VikesFan 1]

I'd say that it's probably a good idea to determine whether or not the drug kills more people than it cures or whether it cures pancreatic cancer but causes brain cancer. So, I say yes, it's easily morally acceptable to deny an unproven drug.

 

I say no. It isn't the government's business. It is the business of the doctor and the patient (and the person/company paying for it where applicable) if they want to try this drug. The results can be published for all to see, and if they are positive, the drug will take hold on it's own. Publish the negative ones too for the world to see so that as results come in, patients can be told what their risks are, and it becomes the patient's decision as to whether or not he/she wants to live with those risks.

 

simply put, even if the drug has negative consequences such as a small percentage of users die, it is up to the patient and doctor, not the government, to decide whether or not the drug is right for the patient.

[VikesFan 1]

Thats classic. Let me guess, your wife or sister is a nurse.

 

You're close. My mother was one, but I'm hardly the only one who has made that observation. Nurses know quite a bit about medicine, and they learn it in a far more practical setting. But in the same token, I've met my fair of doctors to. Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of incompetent ones out there. There are plenty of folks who can pass a test but not practice medicine, and the ones who cannot practice medicine stay in the field b/c there aren't enough doctors to begin with. The system as it's designed does not weed out the ones who cannot practice medicine, it just makes it hard to get in. You have to have lots of money, lots of time, and the ability to take care of yourself (and family if applicable) during the process. That's a huge barrier to entry. It's a big reason why doctors make so much, but it has little to do with the quality of care they provide.

[MedStudent 56]

You have to have lots of money, lots of time, and the ability to take care of yourself (and family if applicable) during the process. That's a huge barrier to entry. It's a big reason why doctors make so much, but it has little to do with the quality of care they provide.

 

yes, you need lots of time because there is a lot of training and a lot to learn. So, you want to shorten the training and this will make for better doctors? This will lead to worse doctors which will lead to more deaths.

 

 

And the FDA is needed because the FDA makes sure their tests are valid and makes them perform additional testing if something does not look right. If FDA is not there then it will be up to the drug companies to police themselves. Doctors can read test results but they can't police the drug companies. They have time to look at test results but they don't have time to analyze the testing procedures and ask for more testing. THe FDA has doctors whose only job is to make sure these products are safe and that is what private doctors rely on. Eliminating the FDA will lead to unsafer products and more deaths.