tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post6157150712911459077..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-19523700847091237562010-03-03T17:16:49.063-06:002010-03-03T17:16:49.063-06:00Government run Health Care, Bailouts, Increased Ta...Government run Health Care, Bailouts, Increased Taxes, Inflation are not the answer.<br /> Jobs.<br /> Instead of supporting a Global industrialised market we need to focus on a more domestic one.<br />Hence the saying.."You cant see the forest, for the trees." IMOOl Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08104714377087960892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-84277429114903734342010-03-03T15:45:08.217-06:002010-03-03T15:45:08.217-06:00567ThujygRelated...but not quite on the same lines...567ThujygRelated...but not quite on the same lines: Cobra is not such a good deal as it sounds to those who can use something else. When I was unemployed, the Cobra premiums were More than my unemployment compensation. I was left with the choice of paying living expenses or Cobra premiums...any guess to which I chose?<br /><br />While I would like to think I am in favor of some kind of government intervention on health care costs, I have to wonder if once it happens if it would be something we could use. Or would we end up having to decide between health care and the other things one has to have to survive? This answer would come sometime in the future after said health care reform takes effect. I am fearful that the answer will not be a beneficial one. <br /><br />Anon 1's ideas seem to be that if you are poor you die, and if you are rich you get health care. Which is probably not very good idea, IMHO, because the difference between rich and poor is sometimes only a couple of weeks.buffalobillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05832548685655654659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-66937009309898303202010-03-03T11:31:21.164-06:002010-03-03T11:31:21.164-06:00I think everyone is thinking too hard. First take ...I think everyone is thinking too hard. First take a page from the car and home insurance business. Notice the first thing is that people buy insurance, not their employers. This puts the payer and payee together. Second, EVERYONE pays a tax on wages that gives a base rate. An employed person can then direct his tax to a private company to purchase greater/better insurance. Oh, and Hospitals must publich their SIC codes of cost. There is no plan that will solve everone's concern with health insurance, but this at least models a successful car and home insurance business. No, this idea does not address medicare.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-57721316191929232742010-03-03T07:37:04.208-06:002010-03-03T07:37:04.208-06:00An interesting article in Monday's WSJ by Indi...An interesting article in Monday's WSJ by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels describing how Indiana helps control health care costs.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.htmlBobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-44895067513795392042010-03-03T06:54:42.662-06:002010-03-03T06:54:42.662-06:00anon1:
I hear ya...and I think your last comment ...anon1:<br /><br />I hear ya...and I think your last comment sums up my hope. Perhaps this is one effort where we will famously do the right thing only after exhausting all other possibilities.<br /><br />Reality will continue to whittle away unhelpful ideas, and like you I think a new tax (probably consumption tax) will be needed. Actually, my favorite choice would be a carbon tax.<br /><br />2 birds...one stone tax.<br /><br />Thanks for your time and conversation.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-37425775338598435332010-03-02T20:38:16.722-06:002010-03-02T20:38:16.722-06:00I do see moral and economic good in covering many ...I do see moral and economic good in covering many more Americans.<br /><br />The point of my comment is that without the will to transform the system in terms of access and cost (Canada, Europe) which I admit goes against the American desire for choice, I don't see incremental changes as very productive. Economic limitations (if recognized) result in bi-polar coverage of the haves and have-nots.<br /><br />I would support the medicare buy-in (but not just for boomers) at true actuarial costs. I am an older Gen Y and my children and I already have to pay for the population bulge of retiring boomers and their self-promulgated excess of benefits over receipts which accelerated in the past couple of decades.<br /><br />I would then desire congress and the administration to seriously deal with cost-control in the delivery and insurance/medicare/medicaid/tort areas.<br /><br />Lastly, covering the remaining 15-20 million un-insured I only see being paid long term by taxes (don't you agree), which I just don't see happening any time soon.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Anon1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-15568541269260206362010-03-02T19:10:01.315-06:002010-03-02T19:10:01.315-06:00anon1:
You point out your solution is not readily...anon1:<br /><br />You point out your solution is not readily acceptable to either side. As an intellectual exercise, I find much to agree with your proposal. But who what is the point of being "right" and unpersuasive? <br /><br />What is possible? What would you settle for?<br /><br />anon2:<br /><br />"...promote the general welfare..."John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-16817868861012876382010-03-02T18:38:36.911-06:002010-03-02T18:38:36.911-06:00Our federal government has two jobs:
1. National...Our federal government has two jobs: <br /><br />1. National Defense<br />2. Uphold the Constitution<br /><br />Nowhere in their job description is to run health care, to provide farmers with as safety net, to provide never ending welfare benefits, etc.<br /><br />Let's drop this health care BS and put it back in the private sector where it belongs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-10921329433679832852010-03-02T16:46:47.835-06:002010-03-02T16:46:47.835-06:00"It is legitimate and I think intellectually ..."It is legitimate and I think intellectually honest to support using this system to control costs. Capping government care costs for the sickest/poorest would accomplish that. However, this idea is almost never spoken about clearly, just left as the answer-which-cannot-be-named."<br /><br />John, I think you are getting at the root of both the problem and solution to this debate. The concept neither side will consider (liberal) or admit (conservative) is that those that need to sign up for "free" health coverage can only economically receive the basics. Those who are wealthy enough or better employed can afford to buy up to "cadillac" coverage.<br /><br />My solution, which neither side can politically withstand, is basic (and I do mean basic)coverage for every citizen and supplemental insurance for those who want or provide maximum coverage. This means that if you don't have the financial ability to buy up, you won't receive extraordinary care.<br /><br />This plan would have to be layered with cost containment schemes gallore and requirements on health service providers for X amount of community service. The basic policy would have to be paid by taxes - probably somewhat progressive - but certainly free or near-free for the poor.<br /><br />In short, those receiving free or only able to pay for the basics, won't get transplants, experimental treatment, etc. without family, community, or some first-come, first-served government catastrophic pool.<br /><br />This, my friends, is the hard economic reality for our desire to keep a consumer-choice, non-government run health delivery system without extreme cost control (socialism), extreme burden (uninsured), or extreme taxing system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com