Monday, December 7, 2009

Is This The Country We Want To Live In? Senator Al Franken

We need more Senators like Al Franken!

Posted by csm at 11:57 AM

7 comments:

BAWDYSCOT said...

The fundamental problem these shits in Congress propigate is they equate health insurance with healthcare. You can have all the health insurance you(or the government)can buy, but unless you have providers willing to accept that insurance, you ain't got nothing. And I guarantee you the more the government squeezes the payments to providers you will either get less and less providers or providers you wouldn't want to send your worst enemy to(or maybe you would). Is this the country you want to live in?

The only sure fire way to personalize a citizen's healthcare, provide healthcare to all, lower costs and get providers to get involved in lowering costs is with personal healthcare savings accounts. Accounts where the patient is in control of the situation. These guys are patting themselves on the back by getting 30 or 31 million more citizens on the health rolls; doesn't that leave 16 or 17 million out in the cold? Heatlh savings accounts administered to the poor by the federal government(see, I am not taking the fucking government out of the equation, just the power to control a citizen's decision making process)can get ALL the uninsured and underinsured the healthcare they need, not just most of them.


verification word: finesse

December 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM
csm said...

You make some assumptions I do not agree with, Bawdy.

First of all, health insurance typically DOES equate to better health care. The uninsured and under-insured do not get the same amount or level of health care that the adequately insured do.

Secondly, there is a shit load of fat in the health care biz that needs to be squeezed out. Why does big pharma advertise PRESCRIPTION DRUGS on television when only a doctor can authorize their use? How much does this advertising budget inflate prescription drug cost? Why do other countries regulate the prices that drug companies can charge and not have their citizens do without?

I understand you want a healthcare savings account plan, and that may be workable as part of a fix, but I am not sold on the idea. Would health insurance be mandatory? If not, would the uninsured just be allowed to die if they meet with catastrophic health problems? If not, how is that fair? If so, that is rather cold.

Regarding Congress not being able to draft a plan that would ensure coverage for everyone, we are in agreement (I think) on that.

December 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...

"First of all, health insurance typically DOES equate to better health care. The uninsured and under-insured do not get the same amount or level of health care that the adequately insured do."

That wasn't my argument, I am saying when the government becomes the paymaster, the college-loan burdened doctor might feel like the miner to the general store when their newly lowered wages have to go back to the government to pay back the loans, or maybe we have a crises because we don't have enough of them, especially in the poor rural areas. And don't think the government plan won't in the end suck up all the citizenry; when you make the rules, print money and manipulate interest rates that is a lot of power to wield.

"Secondly, there is a shit load of fat in the health care biz that needs to be squeezed out. Why does big pharma advertise PRESCRIPTION DRUGS on television when only a doctor can authorize their use? How much does this advertising budget inflate prescription drug cost? Why do other countries regulate the prices that drug companies can charge and not have their citizens do without?"

I agree with you on the pharma commercials for two reasons, one, I don't think it is a good idea for patients to lead doctors in the area of medicine(I have heard too many stories of patients bugging doctors to give them some drug until they relent)and two, I don't believe corporations have the same First Amendment rights individuals do. One thing you may not have considered though is that because most other countries HAVE negotiated discounted drug prices, these corps have very few options to actually make a profit(not that fucking word again, now that is blasphemy right?)if not in this country. Now you might think they don't deserve a nicety like profit, but don't expect any pharmaceutical epiphanies in the future.

"I understand you want a healthcare savings account plan, and that may be workable as part of a fix, but I am not sold on the idea. Would health insurance be mandatory? If not, would the uninsured just be allowed to die if they meet with catastrophic health problems? If not, how is that fair? If so, that is rather cold."

I tell you what, if you back healthcare savings accounts as the ideal I will back a mandatory purchase of a catastrophic healthcare policy to cover anything above and beyond the savings account which will not exclude people with pre-existing conditions. I would have anyway.

"Regarding Congress not being able to draft a plan that would ensure coverage for everyone, we are in agreement (I think) on that."

Healthcare savings accounts for all!

verification word:(and I kid you not) rationo(healthcare)

December 9, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Mike aka Dragonfly said...

The only think missing is "Stein" at the end of Franken.

Healthcare reform is something that ALL acknowledge we need. It transcends the political realm. Guys like Franken-Stein only makes the process worse. We need him out of the party along with Reid and egad....Pelosi!

The best solution here is TORT reform and competition across state lines in conjunction with medicaid/care reform. Utilizing existing medicare/caid systems can effectively add the uninsured to the healthcare system eliminating the need of throwing baby out with the proverbial bath water.

December 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...

Of course, Mike, now I remember. You were always one to look to the federal government and their myriad of programs to solve our ills. Unfortunately, another thing we "ALL acknowledge" is the need for reforms for all the entitlement programs the feds have foisted on us before an extended era of bankruptcy emerges.

Also, Medicare doesn't negate the need for private health insurance as Medicare doesn't always pay for everything, which I have outlined here before. And as for Medicaid, well I have heard many say they would rather die than be admitted to a Medicaid facility. Now there may be some hype to those statements, but Medicaid certainly would not put us on par to those healthcare paragons, the Europeans(who, how ironically, are starting to turn to private market methods of healthcare delivery).

December 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Mike aka Dragonfly said...

I am a student of the Hamiltonian style of government. I believe the private sector should be left as is other than TORT reform and competition across state lines. Medicare/caid would strictly be revamped to insure those who have no other choice. It is better than no coverage and would be voluntary. This minimizes government involvement.

December 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Ryan said...

Nice blog thanks for poosting

June 28, 2022 at 9:08 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)