Both medicare and medicaid are involved. Medicare will pay for up to 100 days nursing home care after a hospital stay. Many nursing home patients are in and out of hospitals, and therefore are mostly covered by Medicare.
You make a lot of presumptions and judgements about other people without getting to know them.
Thats part of the problem we have people on here making statements about thing that they do not have all the facts about. I do claims filing for a large multi hospital health care provider. all the different codings for medical treatment that raise the cost of that can can be laid right at the governments door step. you have for almost everything that you are treated for a diagnostic code a hcpc code cpt code and a revenue code. that all have to be aligned as you can not use some Revenue codes with some hcpc codes ect… Then comes into account that large portions of the cost are written off do to contractual agreements with Government programs as well as private insurance companies. government intervention has brought on all the additional cost. That is why it coast you $10.00 for an aspirin in the hospital they have to pay for the aspirin the nurse to give it to you and some one to make sure that is has all the correct codes on the bill for it. Most if not all hospitals have charity programs now day and for those that do not qualify for that are more than willing to work with the patients to get the bills taken care of.
My principle point was that we have to be careful in declaring what God will and will not provide. For example, non violent resistance appears to have actually worked very well over the millenia since Christ, but most of us still deeply believe in the myth of redemptive violence.
That’s hard to understand since you claim that government is driving the inflation. If we look at the hard numbers, Medicare does a better job of delivering the most expensive health care in American than private insurance does for the lower risk pool of the population (see the GAO reports).
That does not seem to bear close scrutiny. France does, as you say, have a very good health care system (performance wise) - but we spend more of our GPD on private health care administration costs (just paper pushers), than France spends on its entire system. Regardless of how you break it down (% of GDP, cost per treatment, cost per covered citizen), they spend less for better care.
can you then explain why more and more people are switching from Traditional Medicare coverage to Medicare replacement plans offed by private insurance companies
)
Part D was a bureacratic mistake. This would have been better off left handled at the state level under the Medicaid plans.
Great conclusion to the thread.I must say, from the OP standpoint this has been a very interesting thread. It seems clear that there is at least a near-consensus that providing health care for the sick is a basic human (if not specifically Christian) responsibility. Of course, beliefs over methodololgy differ considerably.
There also seems a consensus or near-consensus that the system is seriously damaged and needs serious tweaking, or outright overhaul. (No wonder half the political candidates out there are running as “the candidate for change”
My wager is that the best any of us will ever find in America is a compromise of any or all of our views. That’s the way Washington works, after all. We’ll see what happens down the road.
BTW, thanks to all of you who offered personal support. As someone who was raised on Rush Limbaugh and who went to a college which advocated Laissez-Faire, going on Medicaid was hard to take at first. But you’ll be glad to know that my six-pound infant (whose due date was today) is sleeping happily and peacefully on my chest as I write this. He’s doing quite well. Hopefully we will be back on our feet quite soon. I’m not saying it’s the best system; but I am glad that in our state, a safety net was there for us.
Thankfully we have the firm and sincere hope that we will one day see the Perfect Government, without debates. It will be an Absolute Monarchy.
That is the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives – pretending that there are only two choices.
I’m not suggesting limiting alternatives. I saying that I believe broke people should receive health care. At this point in our history, health insurance, savings, public benefits and charity are in place. Under many circumstance if you get sick enough for long enough, you will become broke. Without health care, it’s doubtful you will ever become well enough to return to work.
But people do get health care, even if broke. When you ask questions like “Should broke people receive health care or should we just take them out and shoot them?” you imply that somehow there is no healthcare for the poor now.
I am so glad to here that your son is doing well. And am also glad to here that you were able to find the assistance that you need that what its there for. I agree with what you wrote I don’t think anyone here would deny or begrudge you that. Thank you It is stories like your that keep me from wondering to far to the right.I must say, from the OP standpoint this has been a very interesting thread. It seems clear that there is at least a near-consensus that providing health care for the sick is a basic human (if not specifically Christian) responsibility. Of course, beliefs over methodololgy differ considerably.
There also seems a consensus or near-consensus that the system is seriously damaged and needs serious tweaking, or outright overhaul. (No wonder half the political candidates out there are running as “the candidate for change”
My wager is that the best any of us will ever find in America is a compromise of any or all of our views. That’s the way Washington works, after all. We’ll see what happens down the road.
BTW, thanks to all of you who offered personal support. As someone who was raised on Rush Limbaugh and who went to a college which advocated Laissez-Faire, going on Medicaid was hard to take at first. But you’ll be glad to know that my six-pound infant (whose due date was today) is sleeping happily and peacefully on my chest as I write this. He’s doing quite well. Hopefully we will be back on our feet quite soon. I’m not saying it’s the best system; but I am glad that in our state, a safety net was there for us.
Thankfully we have the firm and sincere hope that we will one day see the Perfect Government, without debates. It will be an Absolute Monarchy.
**On the contrary. I imply that if we take healthcare from the poor then we shall see them dying in the streets. What then? Will the National Guards be assigned to give a “mercy bullet” or simply collect the bodies as they die? Some people who are not poor can be very cold-hearted. **
Oh, please. Who said anything about taking healthcare away from the poor? Let’s not exaggerate.
The closer to the people you get with help, the more smoothly it runs. The big federal bureacracy falls all over itself and nothing gets done.
My point is that the title of this thread is extreme.
So why did our glorious president push for such a plan? One of his big mistakes.
The mortgage assistance program is a voluntary agreement among lenders, brokered by the government – not something done at taxpayer’s expense.