Tort reform would help everything. If we are talking about things that increase costs in society, I think lawsuits cost us significantly more than government inefficiency. I can't think of anything that is a bigger drain on society than lawsuits.

 

My opinion also. Think the D's and R's could at least take a look at this? Probably have to hogtie the Lobbyists first.

My opinion also. Think the D's and R's could at least take a look at this? Probably have to hogtie the Lobbyists first.

 

May be the biggest problem with healthcare

How about we just cut out the insurance industry entirely and pay providers directly?

I don't like insurance companies. I just grab the folding money from under the mattress, and the butter 'n egg change from the Mason jar, when I pay my doctor, because well... I don't like banks either. I rub my luck rabbit's foot when I get sick, because I just don't have any faith, or like religion.

 

Maybe I could barter some produce from my garden, or offer to paint the doctors house. I know it wont put gas in his Mercedes, but I'm out of folding money now. Maybe I could mortgage the farm if my prostate cancer returns. Oops, did that when my mother got ovarian cancer. Is indentured servitude still a thing? I've got a couple of kids... just wondering. I think I could go without electricity for a month. Boil some water on the wood stove; sleep out on the porch, because gosh it's 90 degrees tonight. My father could move in with me. It'd save all the money I now don't have, that I'm supposed to be paying for his Alzheimer's care. Do I really have to take my medications as prescribed? If I cut them in half, I could save some money, and I do have that rabbits foot. The meds thing would mean I wouldn't have to see my doc again so soon, because his house is painted, and his wife is allergic to tomatoes.

 

Hyperbole? Absolutely. I don't care what side of the aisle one supports. As a voting, taxpaying citizen, I want a healthcare plan that works. I want it to work for me. I want it to be fair. I want it to work for my neighbor. I want it to work for you. I want it to work for people that I disagree with, because that's the America I want to live in. But I'm to the point of insisting that something that something be done soon, so we can move on.

 

How can I be part of the solution? I'm as involved in the political process as exercising my franchise allows. But I'm running out of people to support too. I'm pretty sure mouthing platitudes and sound bites isn't part of that solution. Jeez Congress, Mr. President, do a job (he said sound bitingly).

 

I can count to fourteen, but what are the next ten words?

 

As pointed out above, unless and until folks are willing to turn away those who cannot pay and withhold service from them (regardless of the outcome), we already have universal HC. The costs of those services are spread out to those who do have insurance or the ability to pay. Additionally, it pushes those without insurance to the least efficient providers of services - urgent care and ERs AND it forces them to those providers when their condition is acute and expensive to treat rather than at an earlier point when treatments would be less expensive and achieve better results.

 

I assume the concept of "American exceptionalism" is at the heart of why large groups of people continue to ignore the objective data that America remains the only developed nation without universal HC (Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care (America's Still Not on It) - The Atlantic). Same with the rate at which we imprison our own citizens (“Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population. … Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans.” –Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)) and the gun owners per capita (112.6 guns per 100 people in the US v. 58.21 in #2 Serbia, 54.8 in #3 Yemen, 36.4 in #4 Cyprus, etc.) (Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia).

All I have to do is read about the tragedy of Charlie Gard to know that I don't was a board of bureaucrats making decisions regarding mine or my families health care and with any single payer system that exactly what we would get.

All I have to do is read about the tragedy of Charlie Gard to know that I don't was a board of bureaucrats making decisions regarding mine or my families health care and with any single payer system that exactly what we would get.

 

Sad this story has been made political theater. Millions have been spent on the care and preservation of the life of this infant at no cost to the parents. The degeneration his disease has produced likely places him in extreme pain and can never be reversed.

The argument the courts are in is not should they save him because the treatments are out there, but is it ethical to keep him alive in pain when the medical technology does not exist to stop the continuation of the disease much less reverse the damages.

 

A set of American parents could experience the same issue except after the loss of their child they may owe the millions for healthcare provided.

Sad this story has been made political theater. Millions have been spent on the care and preservation of the life of this infant at no cost to the parents. The degeneration his disease has produced likely places him in extreme pain and can never be reversed.

The argument the courts are in is not should they save him because the treatments are out there, but is it ethical to keep him alive in pain when the medical technology does not exist to stop the continuation of the disease much less reverse the damages.

 

A set of American parents could experience the same issue except after the loss of their child they may owe the millions for healthcare provided.

 

But the parents would be the ones making the choice of when to stop, as it should be. Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a child to live with profound disabilities who will never live a normal life? Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a person with severe injuries that is brain dead and is only turned and watered daily to continue to exist? Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a person with a terminal disease that is suffering great pain to continue treatment that would prolong their life? I don't know that answer to any of those questions but I do know that I want my family making them for me if I'm unable to, not a bunch of bureaucrats that are only worried about the bottom line.

But the parents would be the ones making the choice of when to stop, as it should be. Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a child to live with profound disabilities who will never live a normal life? Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a person with severe injuries that is brain dead and is only turned and watered daily to continue to exist? Is it ethical or moral to "allow" a person with a terminal disease that is suffering great pain to continue treatment that would prolong their life? I don't know that answer to any of those questions but I do know that I want my family making them for me if I'm unable to, not a bunch of bureaucrats that are only worried about the bottom line.

I am no fan of the government intruding into these situations. In my opinion, the British government should not have intruded into the parents' desire to seek treatment outside Britain. On the other hand, it was appropriate , in these extreme circumstances, to refuse to pay for it. I felt the same way during the Teri Shiavo(sp?) situation a few years ago. The only government intervention should have been for the courts to rule on which family member had the right to make the call.

I am no fan of the government intruding into these situations. In my opinion, the British government should not have intruded into the parents' desire to seek treatment outside Britain. On the other hand, it was appropriate , in these extreme circumstances, to refuse to pay for it. I felt the same way during the Teri Shiavo(sp?) situation a few years ago. The only government intervention should have been for the courts to rule on which family member had the right to make the call.

 

I don't disagree with this other then to ask who gets to decide when to stop paying? Insurance companies in the US have been vilified because they have imposed limits or refused to pay for certain services. How is it the OK for government insurance to refuse to pay? Should an insurance company be allowed to refuse to pay for experimental treatments?

I don't disagree with this other then to ask who gets to decide when to stop paying? Insurance companies in the US have been vilified because they have imposed limits or refused to pay for certain services. How is it the OK for government insurance to refuse to pay? Should an insurance company be allowed to refuse to pay for experimental treatments?

 

I may not like it, but someone has to decide. Right now, for most of us it is an insurance company. For others it is the government. As a practical matter, either someone decides in accordance with strict written guidelines or contract language or else we all pay. If a family wishes to continue "treatment" for a brain dead (lay term) relative, that's okay, but I don't think they can expect everyone else to pay.

I may not like it, but someone has to decide. Right now, for most of us it is an insurance company. For others it is the government. As a practical matter, either someone decides in accordance with strict written guidelines or contract language or else we all pay. If a family wishes to continue "treatment" for a brain dead (lay term) relative, that's okay, but I don't think they can expect everyone else to pay.

 

I don't either but that seems to be exactly what the supporters of "universal" coverage want. As you say someone has to decide and someone has to pay. Who pays for the services of those who can't or even better won't pay? And who decides what should and shouldn't be paid for.

I don't disagree with this other then to ask who gets to decide when to stop paying? Insurance companies in the US have been vilified because they have imposed limits or refused to pay for certain services. How is it the OK for government insurance to refuse to pay? Should an insurance company be allowed to refuse to pay for experimental treatments?

 

Considering the govt goes through the courts using the rule of law and doctors advice, I'll take the govt over insurance companies who do have only the bottom line in mind.

Considering the govt goes through the courts using the rule of law and doctors advice, I'll take the govt over insurance companies who do have only the bottom line in mind.

 

The same government that can't or won't balance it's own budget? Who pays for it? Wait, I know tax the rich.

The same government that can't or won't balance it's own budget? Who pays for it? Wait, I know tax the rich.

 

What? :lol2:

that seems a little off topic.