Obamacare is working already!

[msm859]

To all those "critics" of health care reform, what is your solution?

[justbroke]

How about actual reform. There are still critical issues with the current installment of the healthcare act, including funding problems at the State level. You'll hear more about that in the months to come.

[Empire]

Whats the point in arguing over healthcare? The Federal Government is going to collapse long before healthcare gets rolling. Many people here can attest to debt in terms of BK, what happens when the Government BKs?

[BobMango]

To all those "critics" of health care reform, what is your solution?

I can think of two real reforms that would have a significant impact. The first is malpractice reform. I worked in a teaching hospital and our residents ordered every test under the sun just to make sure they didn't miss anything. There is a real cost associated with practicing medicine with a eye towards avoiding large judgments. The second reform I'd suggest would be to require that healthcare providers provide a quote for services before rather than after you are seen, much like when you get your car serviced. We would have patients call to ask how much a particular procedure would cost and we couldn't tell them, because it depended on a lot of factors and we really didn't want to share it anyway. Since people don't know how much something costs, they don't really care and just expect insurance to cover it. If people could price shop and share in the savings you'd see a definite shift down in the cost curve for healthcare.

What we got with Obamacare is payoffs to special interest groups to buy votes (corn husker kickback, Louisiana purchase, etc) and mandates that I think will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional with no real reform of anything.

[chrisdfw]

To all those "critics" of health care reform, what is your solution?

Ban insurance and have people pay for their own healthcare, making sure prices were posted and readily available, just
like plastic surgery, which has gone down in price due to competition. The only insurance would be for catastrophic accidents
and illnesses, not for regular care.

There is no lawncare reform bill, people pay for their own lawncare, why does healthcare have to be different.... it doesn't

[KeithDoxen]

To all those "critics" of health care reform, what is your solution?

One potential solution is to have only catastrophic insurance, and then for everyone to have Health Savings Accounts, where a certain amount of pre-tax dollars go into their accounts each year, and those accounts are used to pay for regular health care expenses. Of course, the problem is that working class people, not to mention the very poor, don't earn enough to save, so how can they fill their Health Savings Accounts? The answer is to give folks up to a certain income level a tax credit or voucher that they can apply to their HSAs. Whatever is left at the end of the year in the HSAs, people get to keep and spend on whatever. So you have real incentive to shop around and hold down costs on the consumer end, heart attacks are still covered by insurance, and the HSAs for regular care are filled for rich and poor alike. Health care costs would plummet.

[msm859]

I can think of two real reforms that would have a significant impact. The first is malpractice reform.

California passed malpractice reform over 30 years ago - set a $250k cap on damages. Still the same cap despite obviously being worth far less. That is more a talking point than a solution.

[msm859]

Ban insurance and have people pay for their own healthcare, making sure prices were posted and readily available, just
like plastic surgery, which has gone down in price due to competition. The only insurance would be for catastrophic accidents
and illnesses, not for regular care.

There is no lawncare reform bill, people pay for their own lawncare, why does healthcare have to be different.... it doesn't

"Ban Insurance" they tried to do that - called single payor too much special interest. The difference between lawncare and healthcare? Lawncare is not a need, healthcare is. If you get sick without insurance you go to the hospital and we all pay. You don't mow your lawn, we do not all pay.

[msm859]

One potential solution is to have only catastrophic insurance, and then for everyone to have Health Savings Accounts, where a certain amount of pre-tax dollars go into their accounts each year, and those accounts are used to pay for regular health care expenses. Of course, the problem is that working class people, not to mention the very poor, don't earn enough to save, so how can they fill their Health Savings Accounts? The answer is to give folks up to a certain income level a tax credit or voucher that they can apply to their HSAs. Whatever is left at the end of the year in the HSAs, people get to keep and spend on whatever. So you have real incentive to shop around and hold down costs on the consumer end, heart attacks are still covered by insurance, and the HSAs for regular care are filled for rich and poor alike. Health care costs would plummet.

I like it. An intelligent creative idea worthy of discussion. For further incentive I would tax junk food, fast food, alcohol and tobacco to solely go in a fund to support the HSA contributions. I think it would be easy to get Congress to get creative. Make it so whatever insurance/plan is available to them be available to everyone at the exact same costs. Then we would find the solution.

[chrisdfw]

I like it. An intelligent creative idea worthy of discussion. For further incentive I would tax junk food, fast food, alcohol and tobacco to solely go in a fund to support the HSA contributions. I think it would be easy to get Congress to get creative. Make it so whatever insurance/plan is available to them be available to everyone at the exact same costs. Then we would find the solution.

We've had enough social engineering, we need more freedom in this country, and more personal responsibility. There was a time when everyone was responsible for their own healthcare. But now we want to have cradle to grave government nanny state responsibility for our lives. We don't need to tax and try to control people's lives. The problem with this country is nobody wants to support freedom. Including freedom to fail.

People need to support their own selves. There is no reason I should have to pay a tax to support someone elses healthcare. Where does it end? I already have to pay to fund food stamps, section 8 housing, and welfare for people that won't work. I have to pay to feed other peoples children through the free and reduced school lunch program. If people can't afford daycare, I'm supposed to subsidize that too. I already pay taxes to support old people's health care through medicare, and their lifestyles through social security.

We need to return to a land of freedom and responsibility. Unfortunately I'm afraid we are instead becoming a nation of whiny children wanting our government to steal from others to provide us anything we can't afford on our own. Everyone in this country feels like they are entitled to air conditioning, television, etc. The average poor household in this country owns at least one car and a color television. They most likely also have telephone service and cable or satelite television. In my mind, nobody who has cable television should ever recieve a dime in social services since they value entertainment over basic needs. If someone is spending their money on air conditioning to be comfortable over having food, the same thing ought to apply. We simply subsidize too high of a living standard in this country. The poor in this country enjopy things the middle class in most of the world wil never have, and that the rich didn't have 100 years ago. I have no problem with anyone having anything they can afford, so long as they do not expect me to pay taxes to pay for it.

I guess personal responsibility is not a solution in this country.

[chrisdfw]

"Ban Insurance" they tried to do that - called single payor too much special interest. The difference between lawncare and healthcare? Lawncare is not a need, healthcare is. If you get sick without insurance you go to the hospital and we all pay. You don't mow your lawn, we do not all pay.

Single payor is not banning insurance, it is simply the government taking over the role. We don't need more government in this country. Why should those who go to work and earn income have to pay taxes and pay for the healthcare of those who don't or won't? People aren't really after healthcare reform, from what I can tell, what they want is those with money to pay for healthcare for those who don't.

As for us all paying when someone gets sick and goes to a hospital, we can end that.

We have created a system of government entitlement that encourages people to not have insurance, since they know they can go and get care. If we didn't have that people would be more likely to get insurance over spending their money on I-phones, internet, television, cable, air-conditioning, etc.

I suppose if you think it is ok to tax some people to pay for the needs of others, then we probably won't agree on a solution.
I don't believe one person has the right to force another (whether through violence or the use of government) to pay for the things they want. There was a time when we had slavery in this country, where a whole race was forced to labor and serve others. We are headed back in that direction as those who pay taxes are increasingly being called on to provide for those who don't. Where does it end? Can we start forcing people to donate their organs? Is individual soverienty a dead idea, do we want a society where the productive are punished through taxes and the unproductive rewarded with food stamps, section 8 housing, subsidize childcare, healthcare, free lunch, etc.

What I would like to see is a rule that says the government has to treat all taxpayers equally. If you take 10% of my income, you take 10% of everyones. If you provide a subsidy to one company or individual you have to do the same for everyone. Free lunch for one child, free lunch for all. You subsidize one persons healthcare you have to do it for everyone. End the discrimination in social security, provide the same replacement rate for all workers, instead of having the high income subsidize the low income. Of course this isn't possible, we can't subsidize everyone, and that's my point, in order to treat everyone equally, you'd have to end these government giveaways, both to rich corporations and poor individuals. All i ask is that everyone play by the same rules, and that includes the banks taking government money , and the welfare cows grazing at the public trough.

[msm859]

Single payor is not banning insurance, it is simply the government taking over the role. We don't need more government in this country. Why should those who go to work and earn income have to pay taxes and pay for the healthcare of those who don't or won't? People aren't really after healthcare reform, from what I can tell, what they want is those with money to pay for healthcare for those who don't.

As for us all paying when someone gets sick and goes to a hospital, we can end that. HOW? WHEN SOMEONE IS IN AN ACCIDENT, TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL WITH NO INSURANCE WHAT DO WE DO?

We have created a system of government entitlement that encourages people to not have insurance, since they know they can go and get care. If we didn't have that people would be more likely to get insurance over spending their money on I-phones, internet, television, cable, air-conditioning, etc. PERHAPS THAT IS TRUE. WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD TAX UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES THAT WILL PUT A BURDEN ON HEALTH CARE.

I suppose if you think it is ok to tax some people to pay for the needs of others, then we probably won't agree on a solution. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? I DO NOT - YET THAT IS WERE MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING. SO WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?
I don't believe one person has the right to force another (whether through violence or the use of government) to pay for the things they want. There was a time when we had slavery in this country, where a whole race was forced to labor and serve others. We are headed back in that direction as those who pay taxes are increasingly being called on to provide for those who don't. Where does it end? Can we start forcing people to donate their organs? Is individual soverienty a dead idea, do we want a society where the productive are punished through taxes and the unproductive rewarded with food stamps, section 8 housing, subsidize childcare, healthcare, free lunch, etc. WE ARE ALREADY HEADED THERE.

What I would like to see is a rule that says the government has to treat all taxpayers equally. If you take 10% of my income, you take 10% of everyones. If you provide a subsidy to one company or individual you have to do the same for everyone. Free lunch for one child, free lunch for all. You subsidize one persons healthcare you have to do it for everyone. End the discrimination in social security, provide the same replacement rate for all workers, instead of having the high income subsidize the low income. Of course this isn't possible, we can't subsidize everyone, and that's my point, in order to treat everyone equally, you'd have to end these government giveaways, both to rich corporations and poor individuals. All i ask is that everyone play by the same rules, and that includes the banks taking government money , and the welfare cows grazing at the public trough.

I would love a country where everyone is responsible for themselves. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple. Saying that everyone as an example should be taxed 10% sounds fair in an absolute sense but is not in a relative sense. Someone only making $1000 per month is going to go without necessities, someone making $10,000 will not. However, the person making $10,000/month in someone ways will have a greater need for government services. They will care more about police protection, safety from terrorists, airports etc.

[chrisdfw]

. They will care more about police protection, safety from terrorists, airports etc.

I agree with that to some extent, and that is why a property tax based on property value is a fair way to pay for things like police protection, since you are getting more benefit from your property being protected I have no problem paying more. But I don't like the implication that someone poor is not valuing their protection from terrorists because they value their life less? I'm sure that is not what you are suggesting.

The problem with our current system is those that pay the LEAST benefit the MOST though taking money from others to provide private benefits like food stamps, etc. Airports should be paid for by those that use them through landing fees, etc. That way even non-fliers pay their share if their goods are shipped my air, etc. Public transportation shoyld be the same. The highways should be paid for by hgihway taxes. That is fair. Unfortunately we are beyond that, we have an entire underclass leeching off the work of others.

[msm859]

....... But I don't like the implication that someone poor is not valuing their protection from terrorists because they value their life less? I'm sure that is not what you are suggesting.

The problem with our current system is those that pay the LEAST benefit the MOST though taking money from others to provide private benefits like food stamps, etc. Airports should be paid for by those that use them through landing fees, etc. That way even non-fliers pay their share if their goods are shipped my air, etc. Public transportation shoyld be the same. The highways should be paid for by hgihway taxes. That is fair. Unfortunately we are beyond that, we have an entire underclass leeching off the work of others.

Someone who is scraping by living day to day does not care about terrorist, wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of spending over a trillion dollars in these wars I would have rather have seen it spent on American jobs to become energy independent. And as to social welfare, it really is not the problem. http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

[chrisdfw]

Someone who is scraping by living day to day does not care about terrorist, wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of spending over a trillion dollars in these wars I would have rather have seen it spent on American jobs to become energy independent. And as to social welfare, it really is not the problem. http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Defense is a legitimate function of government since everyone benefits from being safer, whether you agree with the wars (I have my doubts) or not, that is one thing that you can't exclude someone from.

Its not like we can create a missle shield with a hole in it right above each person that doesn't want to pay, or let your house burn down because you don't want fire service, it presents too great a danger to your neighbors.

A public service is one in which everyone benefits. That was the original function of government, now we have too much private benefit (yes, both for corporations and individuals if you believe that)

Corporations are fictional entities and do not pay taxes, they simply pass on taxes. If you are against corporate tax breaks you need to realize that those costs will be borne by actual human beings. When a corporation pays taxes it must come from one of three primary places. Either the workers get paid less (management are workers too), stockholders get lower returns, or the customers pay more. I do not like the corporate income tax because it disguises the costs that we all ultimately bear. If you buy gasoline you are paying the corporate income tax for Exxon and their kind, you just don't get a clear accouting of it.

There are many subsidies out there for companies, and I'd prefer to see them end, because they benefit one group to the exclusion of another (either the owners of the company, or customers, or workers) but not the general public.

Welfare is a problem, regardless of the amount because it deprives our society of the contributions the recipients would make if forced to work for a living. It also destroys initiative. The is the problem with social security, we take a whole class of people who could contribute and make them dependent on the largess of big government. Just because people are old does not mean they do not have contributions to make, but instead we put them out to pasture and have them sucking at the nipple of government, taking money out of the mouths of their children and grandchildren in some misguided attempt to promote retirement.