Government Effect on Healthcare

After missing out on this yesterday - it leads me to believe

If you don't have anything to loose then Higher Taxes Don't bother you

I heard it again on the Business Channel - Companies are starting to offer Heath Care as a "Perk" when competing for Employees

Health Care is Not a Right - I can see ( 1 ) Visit a Year "Healthy Man Visit" as long as you pay Taxes !!!!!
 
eastside_purple said:
The issue with that is you would create an expensive high risk pool that would be unsustainable since the young and healthy would opt out of those coverages in favor of more basic coverage with much lower premiums.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what would happen. As it should in a truly capitalist society.

The fact is what we currently have with regards to healthcare is not even close to a free market.

Compulsory “insurance” isn’t actually “insurance” at all. It’s a tax on the healthy to subsidize the old and weak. If you believe that’s how are government/society should work, that’s your prerogative but at least be honest about it and call it what it is...

I disagree with people like Bernie/AOC/Jackson2002 but at least they’re honest about their socialist priorities. Baby boomers like to pretend they love capitalism but Social Security and Medicare are a big Ponzi scheme no different from any other welfare programs distributing wealth.
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
That’s exactly what would happen. As it should in a truly capitalist society.

The fact is what we currently have with regards to healthcare is not even close to a free market.

Compulsory “insurance” isn’t actually “insurance” at all. It’s a tax on the healthy to subsidize the old and weak. If you believe that’s how are government/society should work, that’s your prerogative but at least be honest about it and call it what it is...

I disagree with people like Bernie/AOC/Jackson2002 but at least they’re honest about their socialist priorities. Baby boomers like to pretend they love capitalism but Social Security and Medicare are a big Ponzi scheme no different from any other welfare programs distributing wealth.
Click to expand...
In a truly capitalist society, people should go bankrupt for health care issues, including those beyond their control. Good point.
 
eastside_purple said:
Nice, so that’s over a $1T reduction in healthcare spend. Who gets the haircut?
Click to expand...

Some of it comes from an innate change in how medicine is practiced. I don't know the raw figures, but in today's medicine, there's a lot of testing done to check the boxes so insurance will reimburse a hospital or provider for a certain coded diagnosis. Medicare sets the standard for what has to be done and how much they will pay, private insurances offer a better reimbursement in some multiple of what Medicare pays, ie paying 125% of Medicare reimbursement or something like that.

Without a protocalized, coding driven system, theoretically we should see a reduction in expenditure because only things that are absolutely necessary would be done. It would take a while to break habits.

It, personally, disgusts me how we are forced to practice, but there's no reason to think the system wouldn't be far more protocolized, fraught with waste, and would ultimately bring in lower quality automatons to replace the physicians who are currently practicing who don't want their entire physician-patient relationship dictated by the government.
 
Here's the main problem with government getting in health care. EVERYONE thinks its for them. About 3 generations ago, there was a mindset that you took care of you. You worked for what you got, you would be ashamed of taking a handout. Somewhere that was lost. Our welfare programs keep getting bigger an bigger, although the economy is going well, unemployment is low.

So I'd be for government health care only with the following parameter. that it's noted on your tax return and credit score. At some point we need to make it negative to take government benefits. If you are handicapped, or have some other reason you can't take care of yourself, I have no problem with the government taking care of you. But to just hand over benefits to people who are completely able to take care of them self is and issue for me.
 
Gh0st said:
Some of it comes from an innate change in how medicine is practiced. I don't know the raw figures, but in today's medicine, there's a lot of testing done to check the boxes so insurance will reimburse a hospital or provider for a certain coded diagnosis. Medicare sets the standard for what has to be done and how much they will pay, private insurances offer a better reimbursement in some multiple of what Medicare pays, ie paying 125% of Medicare reimbursement or something like that.

Without a protocalized, coding driven system, theoretically we should see a reduction in expenditure because only things that are absolutely necessary would be done. It would take a while to break habits.

It, personally, disgusts me how we are forced to practice, but there's no reason to think the system wouldn't be far more protocolized, fraught with waste, and would ultimately bring in lower quality automatons to replace the physicians who are currently practicing who don't want their entire physician-patient relationship dictated by the government.
Click to expand...
Can you give a specific example? Treatment protocols standardize care to established best practice. I would think if you took that away, you’d incentivize more unneeded services being rendered and more cost, not less. Are you saying physicians would generate less billings if allowed to practice outside of standard of care?
 
Red14 said:
At some point we need to make it negative to take government benefits.
Click to expand...

100% agreed.

Seniors using government healthcare and taking social security should give up their drivers license. That’s doesn’t nearly cover all the cost of using others resources to take care of you, but at least it’s a start and would make the roads safer which would mean we’d be paying less for all the traffic accidents caused by seniors who lack motor skills
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
100% agreed.

Seniors using government healthcare and taking social security should give up their drivers license. That’s doesn’t nearly cover all the cost of using others resources to take care of you, but at least it’s a start and would make the roads safer which would mean we’d be paying less for all the traffic accidents caused by seniors who lack motor skills
Click to expand...

Except Medicare and Social Security are not government welfare or transfer payments. It was a promise made to workers in exchange for a portion of their wages to provide healthcare and retirement benefits to previous senior citizens. Now, I'm all for ending them so if you will reimburse me the monies taken from me and my employers over the last 40+ years, with a reasonable rate of return for the money (5-7%), I will gladly give up any future monies owed to me by the Treasury of the United States government and Social Security Administration.
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
100% agreed.

Seniors using government healthcare and taking social security should give up their drivers license. That’s doesn’t nearly cover all the cost of using others resources to take care of you, but at least it’s a start and would make the roads safer which would mean we’d be paying less for all the traffic accidents caused by seniors who lack motor skills
Click to expand...

Why not just mandate that we turn everyone over 70 into soylent green?
 
SWMCinci said:
Except Medicare and Social Security are not government welfare or transfer payments. It was a promise made to workers in exchange for a portion of their wages to provide healthcare and retirement benefits to previous senior citizens. Now, I'm all for ending them so if you will reimburse me the monies taken from me and my employers over the last 40+ years, with a reasonable rate of return for the money (5-7%), I will gladly give up any future monies owed to me by the Treasury of the United States government and Social Security Administration.
Click to expand...

Most participants in a Ponzi Scheme never get their money back.

Past generations were the early investors. Everyone now is just trying to scrape up whatever pennies can be salvaged from the little remaining of this scam.

This scam is probably why Democrats are recruiting so many illegals to cross the border. They need more bodies to buy into the social security Ponzi.
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
Most participants in a Ponzi Scheme never get their money back.

Past generations were the early investors. Everyone now is just trying to scrape up whatever pennies can be salvaged from the little remaining of this scam.

This scam is probably why Democrats are recruiting so many illegals to cross the border. They need more bodies to buy into the social security Ponzi.
Click to expand...

Actually, if we had invited in enough immigrants in legal fashion and had collected SS taxes for their labor, SS would be in a lot better shape. Too many businesses just happily exploited them AND THE REST OF US by skirting the law and hiring illegals.
 
Last edited:
We the public have brought a lot of the high cost of medical care on ourselves with sue the doctor and the hospitals at every chance. Growing up in the 50's our family had a friend who was a medical doctor. I can remember her telling us once that the last thing you want to do is be sitting at a table and listen to doctors talk because you quickly realize what a guessing game medical care is. Then she added it is educated guessing but still a best guess many times. In today's world the doctor might think they know what is wrong with you but will still run a number of high cost tests just to make sure. Cost of making sure what is wrong with you with the high cost of insurance the doctors have to carry because of being sued and you start to see why it costs so much.
 
These hospital systems WANT to run all these high cost tests. When an MRI or CT makes $2k or so per hour, they want that thing running every minute of the technicians' shifts and they actively LOOK for opportunity to use them. Don't blame that on the potential for lawsuits.

They often employ ER physicians as independent contractors on 1099s, and they kick 'em to the curb at the first opportunity when trouble comes up.

If anyone thinks that a low cap on lawsuits wouldn't result in the "business decision" of allowing a percentage of patients to die or be harmed by negligence is very naive. Some of the hospital people in the very large offices that we never see can have bottom line in mind and won't worry about a little "breakage" if it puts them on the +money side of an equation. God fordid that you or someone you love ends up in the expendable breakage category.
 
Last edited:
cabezadecaballo said:
Actually, if we had invited in enough immigrants in legal fashion and had collected SS taxes for their labor, SS would be in a lot better shape. Too many businesses just happily exploited them and skirted the law.
Click to expand...

If we had never believed politicians should be managing our money, we'd be in better shape. Politicians can't set a budget and follow it for a single year, the concept of balancing expenses with revenues is a concept they haven't been able to grasp for over 50 years.

You can't collect money from a limited group of people to pay out an amount that is not governed by the contributed amount AND increase those payments to be several times more than they earned in any given year of their working lives. I will retire nicely, but it will NOT be at 100% of my last salary and rise to 200%+ of that and never run dry. If the government were a financial advisor or an annuity they would be facing felony corruption charges over the Ponzi scheme.
 
Everyone in Congress makes 180k a year and has there own health plan separate from the public. They aren’t “serving” anyone but themselves. Very bad people running this country.
 
SWMCinci said:
If we had never believed politicians should be managing our money, we'd be in better shape. Politicians can't set a budget and follow it for a single year, the concept of balancing expenses with revenues is a concept they haven't been able to grasp for over 50 years.

You can't collect money from a limited group of people to pay out an amount that is not governed by the contributed amount AND increase those payments to be several times more than they earned in any given year of their working lives. I will retire nicely, but it will NOT be at 100% of my last salary and rise to 200%+ of that and never run dry. If the government were a financial advisor or an annuity they would be facing felony corruption charges over the Ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

The increases and expansions into various disability situations may have gone too far, and exceptions for teachers at their modern wage level is BS, but in general I have no problem participating in a least common denominator SUPPLEMENTAL retirement program that lifts up the bottom a bit in old age. I take no issue with the set-up at the point at which SS began. The problems come when politicians go nuts in growth periods and ignore the coming valleys.
 
Last edited:
Happygoluckky said:
Joe Biden with a new ad on Healthcare. A good ad for the general election as it is a stark contrast in philosophy from the GOP plan -
Click to expand...

We should Take it from a Guy who was able to Politically land his Son Hunter Biden a Job paying $83,000 a month from a Ukraine Co. - FYI Joe has not responded if his son is still on the payroll ! ?

As vice president, Joe Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

www.inquirer.com

As vice president, Joe Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

From the moment Hunter Biden took a job in 2014 with an energy company in Ukraine, Republicans have said it presented a conflict of interest.
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com
 
2manyBats said:
We should Take it from a Guy who was able to Politically land his Son Hunter Biden a Job paying $83,000 a month from a Ukraine Co. - FYI Joe has not responded if his son is still on the payroll ! ?

As vice president, Joe Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

www.inquirer.com

As vice president, Joe Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

From the moment Hunter Biden took a job in 2014 with an energy company in Ukraine, Republicans have said it presented a conflict of interest.
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com
Click to expand...
So now your worried about Ukraine and Russia? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top