Ticket prices for professional sports have increased much quicker than insurance premiums so should we also expect the government to... 1) do nothing 2) intervene and pay for those less fortunate 3) cap player salaries 4) offer options At what point do we draw the line between free enterprise and socialism? Do people want the government involved in everything? Democrats depise the "rich" so why don't they go after these players...or entertainers...or their "rich" constituents? I don't see where Obama's plan will lead to lower costs or better coverage for the working-class American. Will it help those who don't work?...sure Will it help to secure more votes for his party?...sure Will it help America?...the jury is out but it's not looking good. If there are so many questions and so few answers, we need to seriously ask...What's the rush? This administration is only six months old and already concerned about their legacy? :nope:
we get a million $ at a time with no strings attached. this is for basic research. all they expect is knowledge--publications. on the odd occassion a patent results, but mostly the knowledge is used by other researchers and industry
The doctors are another huge part of the problem. Patient retention overrides proper procedures in a lot of cases.
i agree, only the government can accomplishly large and pointless goals. if you want to accomplish a massive and wasteful task, only the government can manage to throw enough cash away to get it done. i honestly do not know, and i do not understand the issue. i do know that there is a push for tort reform and that malpractive insurance is cripplingly expensive. one thing i do know is that obesity is really to a point now that it has to be straining the system. i am stunned by how fat people are (and i dont mean to pick on the south, but you folks are massive ****ing tubs of lard down there). one thing we need to do immediately is kill the department of agriculture. this would immediately make us healthier because we could stop funding unhealthy foods and encouraging people to eat terribly. the government is grossly mismanaging food policy and it is helping make us into fat unhealthy slobs. we throw billions at farmers so they can grow corn that makes super cheap syrup (but it isnt really cheap we paid taxes for it) that goes into soft drinks and every snak food imaginable. and we also fund the cheap corn that goes to feed beef that makes for super cheap red meat. we are basically taxing ourselves so that the price of mcdonalds is artificially low. and so 65% or whatever of americans are horrid fatasses. fixing our wildly mismanagaed government food policy would be a nice first step towards a cheaper health care system. again, the solution is less government, not more.
So where is the middle ground? I envision a system where: 1. The wealthy can afford premiums giving them lavish and expensive private heath insurance with care from concierge doctors at opulent clinics and resort hospitals where there is never a wait and always an MRI technician. It will cost them--they can afford it. 2. The middle-class working citizen gets reasonable and affordable health care through his employer for standard private medical premiums using regular doctors at regular clinics and hospitals--basically what we are now used to. 3. The self employed person who can't get group rates, semi-employed students, widows not old enough for medicare, those with bad backs, diabetes and other pre-existing conditions who can't get coverage from private insurers could get adequate and affordable health insurance for reasonable medical premiums using regular doctors at regular clinics and hospitals. This could be government or private. VA insurance should provide care at this level. 4. The low-paid workers and the non-working poor would receive basic and subsidized health care from young residents in teaching hospitals and they might just have to suffer some waiting rooms and go to public clinics if they can't afford co-payments, but no more gulag-style charity hospitals. I think its a good compromise. Nobody is uncovered and everybody gets to get what they pay for and move up if they can. Sure many lines would have to be drawn and difficult care choices made, but people would have alternate choices, depending on their circumstances. For example, say a fellow broke his nose badly playing basketball: 1. A destitute homeless fellow would get emergency room treatment, a small bottle of Tylenol, and a band-aid. 2. A minimum wage fellow with subsidized heath insurance would get emergency room treatment, prescriptions for pain, and a follow-up clinic visit to insure it is healing properly. More care if needed. 3. A company fellow, the self-employed, veterans, or other unsubsidized insurance holder would get all of the above plus the option for basic cosmetic surgery with a co-payment. 4. The wealthy could get full coverage for a complete nose job and a facelift, too . . . in the Bahamas . . . at the Paris Hilton clinic.
Sometimes the deliverable products are publications. But nobody funds research and expects no products at all from it.
im right with you there. the western diet is horrible. this, and the obligitory rat-race, makes the quality of life worse than preWWII. take out the higher infant mortality rate of 100 yrs ago (thats a ballpark #, martin) and the current life expectancy is similar, and unfortunately now the later years are filled with diabetes, colon cancer and hip-replacements
Owning a car is also an option...not an entitlement. It didn't prevent us from bailing out the UAW. Personal responsibility is also an option but I guess we don't need to hold people accountable when we can just place the blame or burder on soemone else. If we held able-bodied people accountable for their actions we could probably realize a 75% (or better) reduction in tax-payer costs...which would be more than enough to assist "deserving", "needy", people who are truly unable to obtain healthcare. I think it's great that we have a wealthy nation and can help those in need. My question is why we're not supposed to mention the people who are taking advantage of the system. If the % was small, I could understand why we wouldn't expend our energy to identify each non-eligible recipient. When the % is high (I think most would agree that's pretty obvious.) I can't imagine why we're not attempting to identify those taking advantage of the system. This administration claims to be attempting to identify savings through efficiency but won't utter a word about this issue. Why? I think they feel the amount their wasting is worth the votes they'll continue to receive. That's just pathetic. It's not about what's best for the nation...but what's best for the leaders of the party. I'm not saying the other party doesn't sell out as well but please end all this B.S. about "CHANGE". This administration is the same good old boy groups we've been acccustomed to for years. And the "HOPE" is quickly fading! health care housing food job training education grants abortion menatl illness aids/HOV gambling rehabilitation addiction special emphasis programs pre-natal care welfare
I learned one thing tonight. Obama doesn't know any more about this plan than I do. I heard nothing new except that the reform plan is already 2/3 paid for through savings on medicare abuses. Not very specific. I don't know how this plan will affect me. I don't know what it will cost. I don't know how it will affect the standard of care that is presently outstanding. That presser was one hour of my life I will never get back. A total waste of my time. Yes, there are problems with many people getting affordable health insurance. Duh. Already knew that. Obama's got a silver tongue but those of us who don't faint in his presence are still in the dark.
