tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post6312419144479527519..comments2023-10-24T09:07:31.342-04:00Comments on The L Comment: Episode 68: The American Heathcare Act of 2009The Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18232167775850895479noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-6328744799172377262009-07-10T00:42:57.172-04:002009-07-10T00:42:57.172-04:00See, I think this plan minimizes the risk of waste...See, I think this plan minimizes the risk of wasteful spending because it is very simple. A no strings attached $3,200 credit. The government in no way dictates how you spend it. Every American with a social security card would be issued a health card that has your balance... just like a debit card. Go to CVS, swipe your card, get your medicine - a perscription, or advil. Go to the doctor's office, swipe it to pay your co-pay, or use it to pay a medical bill all together. I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.<br /><br />@ LCR, thanks for your comments! A national healthcare database would drastically reduce healthcare costs, while making the system super efficient, accurate, and always up to date, so all doctors and insurers are workign off the same information. As I mentioned, Microsoft and Google are leading the way pinoeering this technlogy. Thus, it would be a free market who is running the show, not government. Many companies can offer a service that tracks your medical records, and even offer certain perks to using microsoft over google over... i dunno WebMD. But they would all access the same national database to ensure everyone has the same information. It would NOT be one gatekeeper with only one key.<br /><br />And no worries LCR, I'll only call for ya for the big stuff!The Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18232167775850895479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-52715362088333948992009-07-09T23:29:01.590-04:002009-07-09T23:29:01.590-04:00Also TL - please don't ask that I respond to y...Also TL - please don't ask that I respond to your posts often as I could have written an entire post over at my site with the time here :)<br /><br />You'll make me lose my crazy conservative readership......Left Coast Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292257205859285528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-40161469787471384672009-07-09T23:24:57.534-04:002009-07-09T23:24:57.534-04:00The Law - Great post, I agree with some of your th...The Law - Great post, I agree with some of your thoughts here, disagree with a lot too. It is obviously much more well-thought out than most of the drivel passing the way throught the halls of Congress. <br /><br />1 - You have the definition and nature of capitalism totally wrong. For one man to gain in a market economy, does not necessitate that another loses. It is simply not true. Brilliant minds from Steve Jobs all the way down to the Hispanic taco shop owner down the street from me have amassed their wealth through a fair and open exchange between free-choosing individuals. It is as basic of a necessity for a free society as freedom of speech. The freedom to own the fruits of your labor, to choose where and how to spend those fruit, to not be coerced by a State do-gooder. I know that this concept is lost now but I really do believe this.<br /><br />2 - The finite amount of money in state and federal coffers from a downturn cannot and has never been remedied by tax increases. Tax increases necessarily have the effect of discouraging the target of the tax - business activity and income/wealty production. The surest way out of a massive recession is to actually do the precise opposite of that which is being done right now. Cutting government, (especially waste), laxing regulations and taxes. It may seem counterintuitive but it is true.<br /><br />3 - If I were to compromise, I would have to say that as madated, your system of private and government competition would work on some levels. The reason, (as a limited govt guy, not a GOP member), that I hate socialized medicine is not necessarily because of the tax implication but more so because of the inherent individual restrictive tendencies of a Federal program. <br /><br />4 - I don't like the sound of a healthcare IT network as it may sound nice today - but what happens when it is in the wrong hands? How about when such a network is in the hands of a flaming right-winger? Too much potential for abuse, the Feds already have too much power to intrude in our lives, I'm going with my libertarian tendencies on this one. Perhaps it could be something voluntary that would reward you with savings on rates, etc?<br /><br />5 - I like your loan idea, very interesting. Interesting that you draw the parallel to student loans.<br /><br />I apologize and must fast-forward. On to your cost of 960 billion. <br /><br />1 - I am very skeptical that the Bush cuts rollback could pay for this as that is leaning massively on high income folks. What if that doesn't work out? The middle class gets hosed. Also in the the 50 or so million 'uninsured' number, roughly 20-25% are illegal immigrants. I have every certainty in the world that illegals would be able to get on the system, (yours disallowing that is a major plus). <br /><br />I give your bill a 3 out of five. That, my friend is saying something since I am one of the right-wing crazies that you mention, at least in a libertarian way, not necessarily socially.Left Coast Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292257205859285528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-47918383970601318192009-07-09T17:08:55.131-04:002009-07-09T17:08:55.131-04:00Very well thought out posting. I appreciate the ti...Very well thought out posting. I appreciate the time you took min this.<br />Still, however, the best route is to reduce the cost of healthcare without a public option. The chances that this will become just another public waste of cash, like the DMV or public school system, an entity lacking in any accountability are extremely high. If it is run properly, with the bottom line being accountable, it will lack the ability to raise funds through a public offering, thus still remaining an endless cash hole. <br />Tough regulations on the entire medical field is still preferred, and should be, at the very least, the starting point.<br />Regarding a comment made bt "conservative generation:" "The point of capitalism is that the fruits of your labor are yours to do with as you please and not for some government bureaucrat to spend for you." Agreed. However, when your exorbitant fruits are a product of the system, and these fruits would never be had outside the system, then something is owed back to the system.Mark Meloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207412251415472942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-82678282124887711632009-07-09T17:08:31.717-04:002009-07-09T17:08:31.717-04:00It's simply paying the premium to someone else...It's simply paying the premium to someone else. And business could hopefully afford to pay a higher wage when not saddled with the burden of health insurance TL. Not that I'm naive enough to think all businesses would do that. <br /><br /> But most places that offer coverage to employees, the individual is covered free or at a low cost to him. The employer eats most of the 400 to $700 a month. The family coverage gets real expensive for the employee. <br /><br /> I strived for a simple as possible way to pay for this. And everybody contributes.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-28876332385279283442009-07-07T20:46:29.195-04:002009-07-07T20:46:29.195-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.conservative generationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10614578478747561732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-85347390067313708482009-07-07T20:46:07.223-04:002009-07-07T20:46:07.223-04:00@ CGen, Thanks! I'm glad I have your support....@ CGen, Thanks! I'm glad I have your support... you read it exactly right. After hearing all the points of view on the topic, I tried to create a bill the reconciled the best arguments made. I did consider roll-overs for the $3,200 credit, but took it out to keep costs low over a period of time. That way, for at least a decade we can budget teh same amount of money, but increase the wiggle room with each passing year.<br /><br />I really do consider myself center-left. Liberal crazies are just as bad as conservative crazies, so by finding the common ground, we can get work done. I think it is as bi-partisan the system will ever get lol.<br /><br />@ Truth, giving you idea some more thought I think that especially now, a 4% increase in come tax would be difficult fo rmany to pay. Along with many of my peers, I had trouble coming up with the money to by taxes as is this year. Perhaps under a more stable economy or reformed tax sturcture, it may be a solution. OR we can combine your idea with mine... a 1% income tax increase to cover the cost of loan subsidation and credits. The 1% could even go into a trust for a rainy-day healthcare fund as well. It would be a relatively insignifcant increase in taxes that could amount to a signigicant number when the tax is collected.The Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18232167775850895479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-22383575557769112542009-07-07T19:13:31.685-04:002009-07-07T19:13:31.685-04:00Right now there are people that could afford healt...Right now there are people that could afford health insurance but choose to take their chances. Then if the unthinkable happens they can file bankruptcy or get public aid. Or just ignore the hospital bills. 47 million without health insurance that those that do have and pay taxes cover for now. Single payer eliminates this. The only real problem is getting many people to get over their fear of the propagandist term "socialized medicine." Millions are under HMOs. Your care is already subject to approval and must go through HMO approved providers. Even if treatment is approved out of network, the copays can be massive.Truth 101 (Forgot to sign in. Whoops.)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-69695623697035728612009-07-06T20:16:23.356-04:002009-07-06T20:16:23.356-04:00tL,
Are you sure your a prog? You're 3 for 3...tL,<br /><br />Are you sure your a prog? You're 3 for 3 on the bills.<br /><br />I don't agree with everything in your opening especially how making money means someone losses money. The point of capitalism is that the fruits of your labor are yours to do with as you please and not for some government bureaucrat to spend for you.<br /><br />I digress.<br /><br />Here is what I like about your plan. At least, from what I understand. My biggest problem with any health care plan is mandated health care. In the end, people need to be able to spend their own money if they choose. If I had a serious illness, I'd like to go out with my boots on and I need the option of going it on my own in case the private/government insurance plans don't want to pay. Your plan doesn't require that.<br /><br />It has limits, aka over $12,000 and you take responsibility.<br /><br />I never had problems with the health database so long as their are measures in place to avoid abuse. It's technology and technology makes things cheaper.<br /><br />I sets up a system where younger generations don't have to bear soaring costs, but still gives younger generations a line so that they also benefit.<br /><br />The loans add a sense of responsibility that is missing from our current or Obama proposed plan. If you needs lots of health care, you have skin in the game. People aren't just going to pay millions and millions for you, but we aren't turning you away at the door either.<br /><br />My only negative thought is that the AARP is never going to go for it, the current retirees will never want to give up what they've got.<br /><br />One other thought is that perhaps people's credit can roll-over or maybe a percentage would roll-over to offset larger procedures.conservative generationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10614578478747561732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-72841786460817600702009-07-06T19:02:16.259-04:002009-07-06T19:02:16.259-04:00Wiil do on the link.
I would think the income ...Wiil do on the link.<br /><br /><br /> I would think the income tax everybody pays would appealto the right in that nobody is exempt. A coomon cry of theirs is about "welfare mooches." This way, they're paying. Might help the sale. Not that this has a chance for the next 6 years anyway.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-53263794232143424642009-07-06T17:49:07.806-04:002009-07-06T17:49:07.806-04:00@truth 101, I think that idea is interesting, but ...@truth 101, I think that idea is interesting, but I think it might be tough to sell, especially when Obama explicitly said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. The George H.W. Bush "Read my lips..." would play over and over again in special interest commercials.<br /><br />With microsoft and google vying for the medical records field... you can bet your bottom dollar that system would be very efficient though.<br /><br />Still, feel free to link the blog... hopefully, the cooperative tone I try to enforce here will rub off =)<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and please feel free toThe Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18232167775850895479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-31032745974987921622009-07-06T17:08:11.267-04:002009-07-06T17:08:11.267-04:00I believe single payer, universal health insurance...I believe single payer, universal health insurance, funded by a 4% income tax, combined with appropriate deductibles, is in the best interest of all Americans. This takes the burden of health insurance expense off our businesses. There will always be a market for after market insurance such as AFLAC. <br /><br /> The system now is cumbersome on patients and providers. Providers have an army of clerks submitting claims to any number of providers or requesting procedure authorizations.<br /><br /><br /> The income tax and deductibles make sure everyone contributes to the plan.<br /><br /><br /> Thanks for allowing me to post TL. I was going to link your site but I'm having bigtime troll troubles and don't want you to be subjected to that. I just hope you don't think I'm a "troll."<br /><br /> Continued success to you.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-79752800325680715782009-07-06T12:43:03.997-04:002009-07-06T12:43:03.997-04:00@ anon1, you are right... to be more fair and accu...@ anon1, you are right... to be more fair and accurate, I should say "federal taxes." With local taxes, you definitely have a better idea of where you money is going and can better see the fruits of you tax dollar at work.<br /><br />But if that's the small detail, I hope thats a "yes" vote! =)<br /><br />@anon2, I also agree for-profit healthcare does create a conflict of interest, but the positive side of that is the healthcare we do have is second to none because of its capitalist nature. I try to reconcile the captialist nature of healthcare by softening its impact somewhat, but it takes more than a silver bullet to bring down an 800 pound gorilla!The Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18232167775850895479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-33605017210975601192009-07-06T12:38:57.671-04:002009-07-06T12:38:57.671-04:00[taken from a commment on TheLaw's facebook pa...[taken from a commment on TheLaw's facebook page]<br /><br />I think that a for-profit health insurance company is a conflict of interest. Something you need to live shouldn't be so hard to get, so hard to keep, so hard to afford, and STILL no guarantee that you will be covered if anything happens. It's a shameful system but I guess they have the money and the power so they're not going away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2957817422221568665.post-82522568489055240872009-07-06T12:37:54.428-04:002009-07-06T12:37:54.428-04:00[taken from a comment on TheLAw's Facebook pag...[taken from a comment on TheLAw's Facebook page]<br /><br />Don't people who can't work and get insurance because of medical conditions or whatever already qualify for Medicaid/Medicare? <br /><br />Republicans don't hate ALL tax raises...I vote yes for the school budget raising my taxes every year :) And, it's not about amassing wealth- it's about the fair distribution of income to those who choose to work for one. There's also the issue of wanting the national government to control as few things as possible. I have no problem donating a significant portion of my income to help people locally- it's way different to have a huge bureaucracy take 1/2 my paycheck (or more in the future?) to "reallocate" to who knows where. <br /><br />I know those were small details in the face of your bill:)<br />I have been watching the L Comment- keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com