J
jlw
Guest
On the money.
- Status
J
jlw
Guest
The healthcare crisis has alot to do with our current culture:
- Kids: TV, video games, and movies trump running, jumping, physical interaction
- fast food, microwave dinners, etc instead of “home cooking”
- “Not my fault”
- daycare, not “at home” care
- Welfare a “right”
- Pill poppin’ the answer to everything
- Broken homes, broken health
- Mental health issues abound!! Any correlation between psychobabble being a substitute for physical action and weight issues??
- “Let the nursing home take care of dad, I don’t have the time”.
- “I’m ok, you’re ok”. Standards of personal apprearance and making good impressions have fallen???
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Indeed. Most chronic conditions are in reality “lifestyle” issues related to obesity, inactivity, smoking or substance abuse. There is always that horrible “bad luck of the draw” where a non-smoker gets lung cancer or a lean athletic man has a heart attack. But since I look at waiting rooms every day, I see a lot of people who are there because of some unfortunate lifestyle choices.
I’l add another one to your excellent list, lack of nutrition training either at home (mommy is too busy) or at school. I am just amazed at how sadly ignorant many young people are about proper nutrition particularly for their own kids. Not to mention how school lunches now feature pizza and cheeseburgers, high calorie and high fat foods. Add to that fear of letting junior play outside, unsupervised, and you have a kid that eats too much and exercises too little. When he shows up with diabetes at age 12 or has high cholesterol at age 15, he’s going to have a lifetime of problems that were created at a very early age.
Lisa N
J
jlw
Guest
Lisa N:
and because of 7), numbers 1), 2), and 4) follow.
Basically, the heading should be 7).
and because of 7), numbers 1), 2), and 4) follow.
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Lisa N:
It would be more efficient if the government ran health insurance. I don’t see how one could argue otherwise with the reality we face with our present insurance companies. I would be in favor of something like the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) being made available for all Americans. It covers approximately 9 million people at a cost of about $2,200 per person!!! The FEHBP offers people freedom of choice at about half the cost of other health insurance programs (offered by profit driven companies).
Lisa N:
BTW, Bush is for creating another government mandate on the insurance companies. Bush wants to allow small business to be able to pool together so they can purchase health insurance at a cheaper rate. MORE EVIL GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Been nice debating with you. :clapping: There can never be any clear 100% evidence for you because you are dead set against government health insurance. For me, if you can convience me that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is a bad program that costs too much, then I’ll join your side. Until then…
Huh? Are you arguing the government would be governed by the almighty dollar and would not seek a efficient and effective way of insuring Americans?
It would be more efficient if the government ran health insurance. I don’t see how one could argue otherwise with the reality we face with our present insurance companies. I would be in favor of something like the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) being made available for all Americans. It covers approximately 9 million people at a cost of about $2,200 per person!!! The FEHBP offers people freedom of choice at about half the cost of other health insurance programs (offered by profit driven companies).
Lisa N:
You seriously think if government regulations were cut the insurance companies would act in good faith? Right now, profits govern their decision making process. If they were allowed to make up their own rules and create a myriad of health plans, wouldn’t those choices be made on profits too? There needs to be government oversight and regulations primarily because of the greed. I can envision health insurance companies creating “cheap” insurance options which would be like the other options - over-priced and be different by providing less coverage to Americans. Great Idea.
BTW, Bush is for creating another government mandate on the insurance companies. Bush wants to allow small business to be able to pool together so they can purchase health insurance at a cheaper rate. MORE EVIL GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Lisa Ngovernment mandates about what must be covered or cannot be covered mean that GOVERNMENT said:
Been nice debating with you. :clapping: There can never be any clear 100% evidence for you because you are dead set against government health insurance. For me, if you can convience me that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is a bad program that costs too much, then I’ll join your side. Until then…
J
jlw
Guest
Government can help the private sector, but it CANNOT do the private sector’s job!!!
Governmental oversight of an industry (tax code, audits, caps on lawsuit awards, tough prosecution of fraud or malpractice) is ok.
But whenever the government takes on the actual work, rather than governing from afar, quality goes down, efficiency goes down, effectivness goes down, AND COSTS GO UP!!
Governmental oversight of an industry (tax code, audits, caps on lawsuit awards, tough prosecution of fraud or malpractice) is ok.
But whenever the government takes on the actual work, rather than governing from afar, quality goes down, efficiency goes down, effectivness goes down, AND COSTS GO UP!!
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Hildebrand as I said I have no expectation of convincing you that government insurance is inefficient. I figure there are probably at least a few people here who haven’t made up their minds and might be interested in hearing about insurance from someone who deals with it on a daily basis…for the last seventeen years.
BTW just curious, are you aware that the FEHBP is generally contracted OUT to insurance companies? Those evil doers are in control again! In Oregon federal employees’ insurance is administered through Blue Cross. The employee gets a Blue Cross card that indicates he/she is a government employee. The provider receives a Blue Cross check. Medicare also farms out the administration of its plan to various insurers around the country. When our group receives a Medicare check, it’s cut by a company called “Noridian” It used to be Blue Cross of North Dakota. Go figure. IOW the government doesn’t administer its OWN program, how could it possibly effectively administer a larger group?
Lisa N
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Government can help the private sector, but it CANNOT do the private sector’s job!!!
Governmental oversight of an industry (tax code, audits, caps on lawsuit awards, tough prosecution of fraud or malpractice) is ok.
But whenever the government takes on the actual work, rather than governing from afar, quality goes down, efficiency goes down, effectivness goes down, AND COSTS GO UP!!
Generally this is the case. Sadly the health insurance companies are beating the government in waste, bureaucracy, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and high prices.
If the government threatens government taken-over, maybe they may experience a “death bed conversion”. Otherwise…
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Lisa N:
There is the solution. Great idea Lisa!! :yup:
I wish I thought of it myself.
This forces the companies to compete against each other. Great idea.
Here we go, here is our common ground. Have everyone who wants health insurance buy insurance from the federal government, then the government contracts OUT to insurance companies.
There is the solution. Great idea Lisa!! :yup:
I wish I thought of it myself.
This forces the companies to compete against each other. Great idea.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Hildebrand said:Here we go, here is our common ground. Have everyone who wants health insurance buy insurance from the federal government, then the government contracts OUT to insurance companies.
There is the solution. Great idea Lisa!! :yup:
I wish I thought of it myself.
This forces the companies to compete against each other. Great idea.
You truly do not understand how this works do you? This is no different than any other employer providing insurance by farming out the administration to a third party. It’s just that this employer is the US government. They don’t do anything but PAY for the insurance, they are not administering it. It is no more or less competitive than any other system. Oh well I tried.
Lisa N
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Lisa N:
You still don’t get it. I am not talking about who is administering it, I never was. That is not my focus. My focus is reducing the cost of health insurance. And if you think the government being the sole entity the health insurance companies can deal with will not bring down prices, then I tried also. There is a difference in each individual, company being caught in the situation of “every man for himself”. If we all band together, the health insurance companies would be forced to compete for a single group: the American people. Then each American person/family would have the option of choosing the plan they want. If you see this idea as the same thing we have today, then “Oh well I tried.”
J
jlw
Guest
Whoa, wait a minute **Hildebrand, **that’s the point!! You just made LisaN’s arguement for her, didn’t you!!
What do we need government for to acheive the scenario above?? Passing a regulatory laws to help, but government doesn’t have to be more involved that that!!
H
Hildebrand
Guest
that’s the point!! You just made LisaN’s arguement for her, didn’t you!!
What do we need government for to acheive the scenario above?? Passing a regulatory laws to help, but government doesn’t have to be more involved that that!!I abandoned the thought of the health insurance companies ever really competing against each other. If there is no real competition, there will NEVER be any chance of reform and reduced costs and reduced waste. Forcing all insurance companies to compete is a possibility, but it will be hard.
On making Lisa’s argument… actually she is opposed to this. She said, “It is no more or less competitive than any other system.”
O
otm
Guest
Teah, and when it comes time for serious surgery, those Canadians who can, opt for surgery in the US. Wonder why? Expertise and timing…
It is only cheaper in Canada if they don’t kill you first…
H
Hildebrand
Guest
It is because everybody is “entitled” to Health Care in those socialist/social welfare states. Health insurance must be kept in health care. Health care cannot be given away to everyone or else we will end up like Canada and Europe.
The greed of health insurance companies may be the downfall of those same companies. If they continue to go to far, the American people may (in the future) demand a health care system like Canada.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
One thing Hildebrand ignores over and over is the cost of bureaucracy IS because of government regulations. Government requirements such as HIPAA, cost millions and millions of dollars. This is NOT something the insurance companies created, it is a GOVERNMENT mandate. These regulations add a huge burden to patients,providers and payers. And they provide little if any benefit for patients.
Putting this same government in charge of the process is not going to make it more efficient or less expensive. As to the Canadian system, well you know the saying, if you want to pay peanuts only monkeys will work for you.
Lisa N
Putting this same government in charge of the process is not going to make it more efficient or less expensive. As to the Canadian system, well you know the saying, if you want to pay peanuts only monkeys will work for you.
Lisa N
- Status