Comments on: Romney’s second shot at healthcare reform Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: TobyONottoby Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:15:58 +0000 DCTech –

I hope you’re not implying that medicine should be regulated. (Except by the VA.)

By: TobyONottoby Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:15:56 +0000 DCTech –

I hope you’re not implying that medicine should be regulated. (Except by the VA.)

By: DCTech Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:40:36 +0000 One of the major problem why the healthcare is so expensive is due to the way legal system is regulating the healthcare. The doctors are scared/dreading of one mistake that may jeopardize their career/life. Results in unnecessary treatments, admin costs, etc.

Not saying to allow doctors run free and wild. But lower the legal issues, the consents are signed by patients EVERY TIME, value that… reduce the care providing costs, Doctors will still make millions as they are doing now.

By: TobyONottoby Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:46:56 +0000 Plan Catch-22.5: The simplest, quickest way to ensure that all Americans receive all the necessary inpatient hospital care and outpatient services to promote, preserve, or restore their health!

Step 1: Re-institute the military draft;

Step 2: Draft everyone is not currently a benefits-eligible veteran, or is not, by virtue of active duty status, already on track to become one;

Step 3: Honorably discharge all excess personnel; and

Step 4: Administer everyone’s health care through the VA.

Shouldn’t take more than a couple of weeks to get it done. There’s already a web page that explains your Medical Benefits Package, my fellow veterans-to-be – efits_package.asp -“Your comprehensive VA Health Benefits includes all the necessary inpatient hospital care and outpatient services to promote, preserve, or restore your health.”

By: SamuelReich Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:43:53 +0000 A needed actions to reduce cost is create more doctors and other highly trained health workers, generic drugs and hospitals (a place to work under close supervision). Since everyone wants doctors highly trained technically, the main thing is reduce the cost of becoming one, free tuition (at schools that agree to add other fees) and other perks. Subsidized building of hospitals, generic drug research. Government run alternatives to privet health insurance and trust busting in insurance and limit all government payments to hospitals where there are medically trained government inspectors checking the suitability of treatment and charges before payment.

Economics 101 says more consumers (insured sick) means higher prices unless there is more supply (doctors, hospitals, drugs etc.).

By: TobyONottoby Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:18:05 +0000 trevorh –

Unless Canadians radically changed their constitution, I’m going to assume that health care remains a provincial responsibility there. Thus, there is no Canadian system. There’s one system for NL, one for NS, one for PEI, one for NB, one for QC, one for ON, one for MB, one for SK, one for AB, and one for BC. (I think the feds are ultimately responsible for the territories, though.) Efficient, eh? But a good model for America, where the various states aren’t so fond of each other, and where the relationship between each state and the national government could use counseling.

Americanizing the Canadian approach would require that health care be made entirely the responsibility of the states, which of course is constitutionally impossible. Threatening the states with loss of federal funds if they don’t fulfill that responsibility, however, should be perfectly constitutional, and would be well suited to the American spirit.

It then becomes necessary to judge what constitutes a sufficiently adequate system to qualify a state’s receiving federal money for just about anything, from bridges to nowhere to courthouse cannons. RomneyCare, such as Massachusetts currently “enjoys,” the two-tiered system you suggest, and several others could, and probably would, be deemed adequate. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for anything worthy of the name “system” to come about: It just invites suffocation, which can be very expensive if it leads to a hospital visit.

By: trevorh Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:19:59 +0000 I propose a hybrid system of nationalized health care and private sector.

1. Have a public hospital system that will take care of everybody. Clearly, this system has to be done the same way as other countries’ nationalized health care which is government determines the compensation of doctors and other expenses in the public hospital. I believe Canada for ex caps it at about 500k/year per doctor, so a similar cap might be appropriate.

2. Every doctor works under the public hospital system for some year (5-10) before they are given license to work in the private sector.

System 1 ensures people won’t be left hopelessly on the street.

System 2 ensures free-market dynamics which helps innovation, researches and lower cost, and that doctors are not “enslaved” by the governments as many complained.

People without money goes into the first system. People with money go with the second system.

Doctors can still make money in system 2 since they get through a lot of suffering in med school. This is a decent compromise.

In case of overflow of demand in system 1 (this will happen), and there is a long waiting list, (I read people have to wait for months in Canada because of the high demand) people can always spend money to get instant care in system 2.

Another way to reduce stress on the system is medical travel. I believe one non-trivial reason health care costs so much in the US is because rich people all around the world come to the US to get the best care. These deep pockets greatly increase demand thus lead to higher price. Medical travel to other countries for medical treatment will reduces stress on the US system.

This is very similar to the education system of public and private schools. It makes a lot of sense to me.

By: majkmushrm Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:48:29 +0000 Your suggestions are, quite frankly, worthless. Americans don’t need health insurance, they need health care. Insurance is simply legalized gambling. That’s OK for accident insurance as a way to stand up to your legal obligations in case of an accident. That’s not such a good approach for health care as it means that nobody does anything until something is broken.

A good first step in energizing this debate would be to have companies add the net value of the health insurance they offer their employees to their W-2s and have them pay taxes on it. That would wake up a lot of people in a hurry.

By: TobyONottoby Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:57:53 +0000 By the way, I believe that my modest proposal has been well tested already. Under the Canada Health Act, provinces are politely requested to provide health insurance to their citizens, but each province is free to opt out, in which case, the province receives a polite note from the Federal government, regretting that no “cheque” from the latter to the former has been enclosed.

By: zero0000 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:40:49 +0000 There are several flawed assumptions in this argument: 1., that the Republicans care at all about uninsured Americans or have the slightest intention of helping them; 2., that all states have a high-risk insurance pool (I’m from Georgia, we don’t have one, because our *Republican* legislators oppose it) and 3., it offers no suggestion for how President Romney would create high risk insurance pools for states whose legislators have decided they’re not getting one — what would Romney do? Force them? Federal intervention again!

Why don’t Republicans just admit that they don’t care about the sick? When you offer suggestions only when it looks like your opponents are about to pass reform, and the last-minute plan you do offer is laughable, your apathy is crystal clear. Republicans only talk about health care when they’re trying to destroy any attempt to improve access.