5
5
0
Excellent read. Listening to the morning shows on POTUS Politics Sirius XM led me to this article in The American Conservative. Excellent argument from both sides as to how NeoLibs and NeoCons in politics whom are in cahoots with Corporate Heathcare and Pharmaceuticals are the problem.
The Conservative Case for Universal Healthcare
Posted from theamericanconservative.com
Healthcare
Conservative
Politics
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
I don't see this working here. I have lived in Germany for quite a while and seen first hand how their system works. It's fairly simple, you have those covered by the federal plan that doctors must accept and those with private insurance. Here is why I don't think it will work. In Germany, those covered by the federal insurance are seen by the doctor when they are not seeing their paying (private insurance) patients. So the masses sit in folding chairs in a huge waiting room for the opportunity to be seen while those with private insurance are ushered into a private waiting room, which reminded me of an airport rewards club.. There were TVs, refreshments and comfortable seats. I will also say that the legendary German efficiency was working as well, my appointment was 1300 and at 1300 I was in front of the doctor.
Why wont this work here you ask... Too many snowflakes and entitled are going to demand the first class treatment that the paying customers are getting, of course expecting someone else to foot the bill.
Of course one could argue for a true federalized system, where all doctors and hospitals are owned and run by the Government, Hmmm don't we have some of that now, called the VA? How's that working?
Why wont this work here you ask... Too many snowflakes and entitled are going to demand the first class treatment that the paying customers are getting, of course expecting someone else to foot the bill.
Of course one could argue for a true federalized system, where all doctors and hospitals are owned and run by the Government, Hmmm don't we have some of that now, called the VA? How's that working?
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
My dad and uncle had told me the VA used to have great service and they too are perplexed as to why things have gone downhill; so from their perspective, the system did work for many for a long while.
Definitely agree that there will be snowflakes who want everything given to them and the entitled that already have what they need and don't care if no one else has the same advantage (i.e. politicians). I have to believe there has to be a compromise that benefits all and not just those fortunate to afford it.
Definitely agree that there will be snowflakes who want everything given to them and the entitled that already have what they need and don't care if no one else has the same advantage (i.e. politicians). I have to believe there has to be a compromise that benefits all and not just those fortunate to afford it.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jim Kotva
PEOPLE NEED TO DO A ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS READ THIS LINK
https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.
And do you know who’s to blame? Believe it or not, the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 … *gasp* … why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! What are the odds? It’s all right here to read for yourself.
And to perfectly cement HMOA73 as the profiteering boondoggle that it actually was, the law Nixon mandated also included clauses that encouraged medical providers to not CURE afflictions, but to PROLONG them by only treating the symptoms. There’s no money to be made in CURING sickness. But the sky’s the limit when it comes to forcing people to endure repetitive doctor visits, endless (and often useless and redundant) tests, and … of course … let’s not forget the ever-increasing demand for American-made prescription drugs!
https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.
And do you know who’s to blame? Believe it or not, the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 … *gasp* … why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! What are the odds? It’s all right here to read for yourself.
And to perfectly cement HMOA73 as the profiteering boondoggle that it actually was, the law Nixon mandated also included clauses that encouraged medical providers to not CURE afflictions, but to PROLONG them by only treating the symptoms. There’s no money to be made in CURING sickness. But the sky’s the limit when it comes to forcing people to endure repetitive doctor visits, endless (and often useless and redundant) tests, and … of course … let’s not forget the ever-increasing demand for American-made prescription drugs!
Skyrocketing health care costs: Thanks President Nixon!
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tac…
(0)
(0)
SPC John Parmenter
My German friends are unhappy with their national "healthcare" program also. One's wife waited months before having major abdominal surgery (cancer?). The other's wife waited months before having a tumor removed from behind an eye. Little wonder America's cancer survival rate is so much better than Europe's.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
A few issues - you make some great point starts. Yes there are two systems. Both are fully interchangeable. You can be on any of the systems you wish. My English wife and I are on a similar set up in the UK: she is on the nationalized system and I am on a private one. Our level of care is the same. Our quality is the same. I have MS so I do not need to be in the pipeline. I only require the services of a neurologist. So the private system allows me to go to just the doctor I need. The cost differences are minimal to go from national to private. I pay pennies (literally) to be on a private system. Now...if you like sitting in waiting rooms, then national is the way to go. But any national patient can go private in next to no time.
Also note that your drug stores in Europe are staffed by full doctors and you are encouraged at every level to use them. Your check in at most European doctors offices has a ton of posters on the wall telling you to leave if you have certain maladies. "Are you here for a cold? Go to the drug store and see the doctor there," etc. So once people read the placards, there are quite a lot that will get up and leave. As to the quality, there are tons of Americans leaving the USA for cancer treatment overseas. So I'd have to question that statistic of America having more survivors.
Also keep in mind that what we Americans will and won't put up with, the average European does. You can't look at a European issue with American eyes, etc. For example, your American doctor would never dream of telling you to stop smoking or he will refuse to treat you. In Europe, that is what happens. My father in law has been changing doctors (diabetic) because he refuses to monitor his blood, eat sensibly, etc. So his practice dropped him. Irrespective of the morality of that, no one in Europe gets upset at it. Bottom line? What we find a nuisance may not very well be considered bothersome in another country.
Also note that your drug stores in Europe are staffed by full doctors and you are encouraged at every level to use them. Your check in at most European doctors offices has a ton of posters on the wall telling you to leave if you have certain maladies. "Are you here for a cold? Go to the drug store and see the doctor there," etc. So once people read the placards, there are quite a lot that will get up and leave. As to the quality, there are tons of Americans leaving the USA for cancer treatment overseas. So I'd have to question that statistic of America having more survivors.
Also keep in mind that what we Americans will and won't put up with, the average European does. You can't look at a European issue with American eyes, etc. For example, your American doctor would never dream of telling you to stop smoking or he will refuse to treat you. In Europe, that is what happens. My father in law has been changing doctors (diabetic) because he refuses to monitor his blood, eat sensibly, etc. So his practice dropped him. Irrespective of the morality of that, no one in Europe gets upset at it. Bottom line? What we find a nuisance may not very well be considered bothersome in another country.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
A point of view based on a fallacy is like a house built on sand. No matter how well built, the house will fail when the sand fails. "...socializing healthcare is the only demonstrably effective way to control costs and cover everyone." I was working at Social Security when Medicare was being debated and legislated, and those of us who took the time to look at the plan knew one thing for certain: Medicare was going to raise the cost of healthcare for everyone. And it did. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at how Medicare "works". When the doctor charges me $100 for a visit/procedure/whatever, the bill is sent to Medicare where it is determined that the service provided is actually worth $20 of which they will pay just $8. You notify me that I may be billed for the balance $12 (not $80 because the doctor has agreed to accept the Medicare determination otherwise he isn't qualified to practice on Medicare patients). So, I have purchased a Medicare Supplemental Plan from a private insurer who will pay the balance owed ($12 not $80). So, who pays the $80? Non-Medicare patients pay it. Doctors and hospitals recoup their costs by billing non-Medicare patients higher for the same services. Now, here comes the really interesting part. The Major Medical portion of Medicare is "free" (to me - workers pay for it with higher taxes just as I paid for others when I was working). I pay a monthly premium for the other parts of Medicare plus I pay monthly premiums for my Medicare Supplemental plans. Pay attention here: The monthly premiums I pay to the govt and private insurers is about the same that I was paying for a private health insurance plan before I retired. Under that plan, if the doctor billed $100, he was paid $100. How can that be? You figure it out...
Still, the high cost of healthcare and the govt's inefficiency is not the biggest problem. Under single payer healthcare systems, guess who makes your healthcare decisions. Will you be treated or sent home with pain meds and told to die and stop being a burden on society? A bureaucrat. My father also worked at Social Security and his job was to place his judgment above doctors who attended you to determine if you were disabled and entitled to receive benefits. Yes, I've seen the system at work and there is no way that this Conservative will ever dance around a single payer system singing its praises. Nope, no way, no how...
Still, the high cost of healthcare and the govt's inefficiency is not the biggest problem. Under single payer healthcare systems, guess who makes your healthcare decisions. Will you be treated or sent home with pain meds and told to die and stop being a burden on society? A bureaucrat. My father also worked at Social Security and his job was to place his judgment above doctors who attended you to determine if you were disabled and entitled to receive benefits. Yes, I've seen the system at work and there is no way that this Conservative will ever dance around a single payer system singing its praises. Nope, no way, no how...
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSgt Gary Andrews - That presumes that welfare programs care for the weak. Sorry. That just ain't so.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Gary Andrews
CPT Jack Durish - Now you are on the slippery slope of stereotypes, Captain Jack. This is something I know about, having retired from a secondary career in the field of social services. While it is true that some try to make a career out of welfare.....the vast majority of people who come to us are in dire need, and use the benefits as they are intended......as a temporary hand until such time as they can right their own ship and get back on their feet. For every "welfare queen" you might be able to point to......I can point to hundreds of other families that were able to "get by" with the use of welfare, and then got back to a self-sufficient status. And "getting by" is all anyone can do with all the benefit cuts that have hit cash aid and food stamps in recent years......it is far from a lavish lifestyle, and most people want off of it as soon as they are able.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSgt Gary Andrews - You present anecdotal evidence, but the real problem in the welfare system is systemic. It is designed to be abused. I suggest that you look at the Welfare System maintained by the Mormon Church for their members. (No, I'm not Mormon) It is designed around the end goal of moving people off of welfare. The national/state system is designed to provide for the needy (who may or may not remain "needy" forever). There are other similar systemic problems in the District of Calamity. Consider the provisions in the IRS code that allow people to file bogus claims for refunds based on tax credits to which they are not entitled. There too we see abuse costing billions. Good intentions do not make for good results. Indeed, the old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is proven by the abuses of American systems that rest solely on good intentions.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Gary Andrews
CPT Jack Durish - You aren't quite up to date on how our current welfare system has evolved. It's true, that in the past it was considered a "hammock" of sorts, that some got quite comfortable in. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 went a long way towards changing that. Our departments devote a significant number of staff to the welfare-to-work goals......and while they are not successful in all cases, they make good progress. Locally, our staff teams up with the local college and programs have been developed to give our recipients the training and skill sets they need to get into the job market. On several occasions, I addressed groups that had completed a course of training, passed their certifications, and were being employed in the community. Our Certified Nursing Assistant program has been particularly successful in moving single mothers off of welfare and onto employment rolls. There are many other efforts achieving success as well. Those that don't comply with the work requirements, are removed from their family's grant. Believe me, with all the paperwork they have to do, and all the requirements they have to meet, for the paltry sum they can receive in cash aid......most want out of the system as soon as possible. Our staff digs deep into their business, up to and including sending investigators to their homes to verify information. It's not an easy, or fun, process to be on aid these days.......and the goal is to get them back into the workforce as quickly as possible. Those that still try to use it like a hammock, are finding it to be very uncomfortable. Our system no longer caters to "career" welfare recipients. Since we operate off of federal, as well as state regulatory requirements, I presume it is the same all across our country.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Jim Kotva
PEOPLE NEED TO DO A ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS READ THIS LINK
https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.
And do you know who’s to blame? Believe it or not, the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 … *gasp* … why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! What are the odds? It’s all right here to read for yourself.
And to perfectly cement HMOA73 as the profiteering boondoggle that it actually was, the law Nixon mandated also included clauses that encouraged medical providers to not CURE afflictions, but to PROLONG them by only treating the symptoms. There’s no money to be made in CURING sickness. But the sky’s the limit when it comes to forcing people to endure repetitive doctor visits, endless (and often useless and redundant) tests, and … of course … let’s not forget the ever-increasing demand for American-made prescription drugs!
https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.
And do you know who’s to blame? Believe it or not, the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 … *gasp* … why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! What are the odds? It’s all right here to read for yourself.
And to perfectly cement HMOA73 as the profiteering boondoggle that it actually was, the law Nixon mandated also included clauses that encouraged medical providers to not CURE afflictions, but to PROLONG them by only treating the symptoms. There’s no money to be made in CURING sickness. But the sky’s the limit when it comes to forcing people to endure repetitive doctor visits, endless (and often useless and redundant) tests, and … of course … let’s not forget the ever-increasing demand for American-made prescription drugs!
Skyrocketing health care costs: Thanks President Nixon!
Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tac…
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google