Debt Rattle June 27 2017
- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Egon Schiele Port of Trieste 1907 • Trump Eager For Big Meeting With Putin; Some Advisers Wary (AP) • Three Journalists Quit CNN In Fallout Fro
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle June 27 2017]“…Money Is Created…”
That’s how “inequality” is made possible. End money–by choice, en masse–and that will end such inequality.
Sad to say single payer would not save U.S. health care. Not with all the same corrupt people in charge. Aside from it being entirely, hilariously illegal (but who cares about that anymore) as there is no federal mandate whatsoever without a constitutional amendment, every. single. move. since the government got involved has made things wildly, measurably worse. U.S. health care was in some need of reform by 1992, whereupon the Clinton administration accepted the insider lobbying of the insurers to create the “HMO” initiative, under great promise: with the structure of an HMO, insurers would spend their money on preventative care and reduce costs and sickness. We know what really happened: as usual, it was a scam, and the lobbying/law structure created insured that health care would be consolidated, prescription drugs prices enshrined and their murders protected, all small offices and competition driven out of business, along with every religious or charity organization, leading to spiraling prices and a collapse of choice, with no charity or human backstop. Worse, there came to be no logic of service or pricing in the system, and no recourse regardless of whom, or how many were killed, which is now in the millions.
I don’t know what it is in the American mindset that creates this sort of monopoly corruption and abuse with such violent certainty, but there is, and always has been, perhaps before the Adams administration. So for whatever reason, the American character is uniquely unsuited for a government-run health care, just as we’ve monopolized/insider-protected banking, autos, and defense. Arguments? The government runs and/or oversees the entire health care system RIGHT NOW, and we have the world’s highest costs, higher than France or Switzerland, while providing as close to no health care as functionally possible, on par with Africa or Cuba. So if they’re ALREADY overseeing the whole thing, and ALREADY got a crack at it with a decade of Obamacare, what on earth would make you think giving them even more control would help? We just established that things only got violently worse back when they got heavily involved in ’92.
While it’s nearly impossible to solve — which all parties knew, and have been driven to make worse quickly as possible, with costs and profits higher, in order to have it collapse faster and “have to” go single-payer/nationalized health care — a more logical approach might be to make it less bad by repealing the laws one by one to reverse our system so it would ONLY be as catastrophic as it was in 1992. That is to say, about 100x better than it is now. Rather than buying a new pig in a poke, the system knows and remembers how it worked 7 years ago, 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and it was already proven to work less bad back then. This is just simply the approach of “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Then, “if you don’t really want to live in a hole, fill it back in the way it was”. I know this sounds crazy, but that’s only because it’s logical in what has become a crazy world. Try it. We already have the worst, most expensive care on earth, practically any direction is up from here. Any direction but single payer/national health care. Foreigners may not believe this or understand it, but sadly, we already showed that completely fails here.
…. with all the same corrupt people in charge.
new people in charge will not change anything
Keeping the printing press going is the the only delaying option available.Warren Buffet on single payer:
Don’t miss the comments.
Rampant medical fraud is tolerated in the U.S. With Obamacare, socialization of medical fraud was attempted without success, but single payer would succeed with that objective.
Why not single payer for auto insurance, home insurance, business insurance and liability insurance, too? Aren’t cradle-to-grave insurance policies fundamental human rights? Surely any rich country could afford them.
By the way, Buffett is a globalist. Think, Pooh, think.
Here is a shocker:
Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With
In some places, people believe(d) that when a woman had a child with a male, all her subsequent children with other males would have some trace of earlier males. That is now perceived to have been an “old wives’ tale”
@Dr Diablo:
Instead of floundering in cynicism we could undertake simple and effective reforms. No constitutional roadblocks would have to be overcome. Government established systems don’t need to unconstitutionally block doctors and hospital from contracting with patient in whatever way they wish. A well-structured public system will just make it unnecessary and uneconomical for them to do so. Here are the reforms:
1. Lower Medicare age to 55. This would most efficiently remove the most difficult to insure group from the reform process faced by the individual states.
2. Simplify the Medicare benefit structure so that there is one simple annual deductible for all parts of Medicare (A,B,and D) based upon an income and asset test; and also re-set the Medicare Part B premium so that it is also income and asset test based.
2.1 This would make the need for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Prescription Drug plans obsolete; saving the government and consumers hundreds of billions.
2.2 Some percentage of current insurance workers could be leased by current insurance companies to the government during a transition phase, while those losing their jobs could get direct transition assistance.
3. For everyone through age 54 each state individually or in concert with other states could adopt some proven model such as the Singapore model, the Taiwanese model, the Swiss model, etc. Large states who have larger populations and economies than many model countries will have no problem establishing systems. If smaller states run into difficulty they will can join together with other small states to adopt models that work best for them (regional proximity would not be required).What I suggest could work. Right wingers in red states would like the individual state control aspect and burn themselves out on pushing for a return to a cash-based system for the poor and boutique plans for the highly paid employees and wealthy individuals which will ultimately prove unsustainable compared to the socialistic systems established in the blue states. Left wingers in blue states will jump at the chance to bring forth successful plans and thus help the blue brand and motivate blue voters nationwide. Big health insurance companies would find a way to profitably shift to providing administration services to Medicare and the states. Big Pharma…well big pharma would be screwed…they would most likely have to deal with bulk discounted sales to Medicare and the state plans who in turn would have the discounted drugs fulfilled through the existing pharmacy outlets.
“Big Pharma…well big pharma would be screwed…”
Oops!
Casamurphy, your plan is DOA.
Here’s a better idea:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232164At the bottom of the https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232164 link you posted the author provides a linkto his other solutions and one (“Wholesale drug pricing in the United States must be on a “most-favored nation” basis”) echos what I’m saying about drugs.
The https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232164 link suggests the reform that jurisdictions make this law:
“Notwithstanding any other provision in state or federal law, a person who presents themselves while uninsured to any provider of a medical good or service shall not be charged a price greater than that which Medicare pays for the same drug, device, service or combination thereof.”
Nothing I suggested would limit your ability in your state to make that suggested law a reality.
Also, anyone today can enforce the same rule. When I had to take my wife to a hospital emergency room years ago on a Saturday because her face was swelling up with large red blotches, the in-take clerk told me that only the business office could give me an estimate of charges up-front and then I made the clerk sit with me while I continuously called the business office to no avail. Finally I just inserted an amendment to the payment clause of the in-take form limiting my my agreement to pay no more than $500 in aggregate from any and all providers be they direct employees of the hospital or independent contractors. The doctor looked at my wife’s face, prescribed a strong cortisone ointment and told us to see a dermatologist Monday. Later when the bills came in totaling $2000, I prorated every bill against the $500 limit and sent payment along with my copy of the in-take form. Only the hospital balked. I told their collectors to call my attorney. After my attorney and the hospital attorney discussed the amended in-take form the hospital accepted my limited payment in full and that was the end of that. My attorney said she had so much fun on that one, she didn’t even charge me.
Casamurphy: I can’t help being cynical about ANY plan hoping to rein in drug companies. Denninger has been pounding his points for years, points I largely agree with, but to no avail. The power players in the medical / psychiatric / pharmaceutical / insurance industries have vested interests in their criminal status quo, and they purchase politicians who will respect those interests. People are getting fatter and sicker, they fail to acknowledge the connection between diet and health, they take myriad drugs (including psychoactive drugs), and they’re being killed off in huge numbers by the very medical system they’re convinced they can’t live without. The waters are muddied further by Affordable Care Act “taxes,” insurance limits, regulations, restrictions, schedules, exclusions, deductibles, etc. The system defies overhaul. There is no way to fix it. We might get a chance after it collapses, but not if the populations of sick and injured people continue to grow, and continue to demand that everybody else cover their growing medical expenses.
Your story about taking your wife to a hospital emergency room years ago was poignant. If everybody attached similar amendments to hospital in-take forms, we might all see changes to the system in a matter of weeks. But as things stand, patients vainly look to politicians for solutions. We don’t need a legislative plan, we need grassroots movements. I wonder if your attorney might not enjoy creating a standard form we all could make use of.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.