Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

"Both parties are in the pockets of and steer money and privileges to businesses at will and at LARGE. I will say at least the Rep's sort of admit it, sort of. The dem's hide it as a dirty shame, but a cursory glance at the funding shows it to be the same ol' thing on both sides."

This is spot on with Hillary. Not so much with Obama. By far most of his money comes from donations of less than $100 though of course he does have some big donors. McCain is not that different from Hillary in this department - most of his money comes from corporate interests - He wasnt asleep all those years he was chair of the Commerce committee.

[sck5]

"Suggestion? find a 'catastrophe' plan. Find a Disability plan. Buy them."

Now that is the best advice I have seen on this thread. Catastrophic coverage is something everyone should have. As it happens, John Kerry wanted to have catastrophic coverage for everyone - I think it was supposed to kick in as soon as expenses got to 10k so nobody could be ruined by a medical emergency like CP. In any case, regardless how you get it, it is something everyone should have.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

chucky

What you described in your last post was mandated employer provided private health insurance. What I have been talking about is some version of "medicare for everyone". I completely agree that the employer based system has bad incentives built in and to try to somehow add on to it or use it as a basis for universal coverage is a bad idea.

That is why medicare is a better model. It has worked ok for decades. it doesnt do everything and if you want extra you can sign up for Part B. If you want more than that you can go get private Medigap policies. My parents have done all of that and it works well. The advantage is that everyone is covered at a basic level and nobody's employer has to be responsible for it.

One thing to remember - All of those currently uncovered people? We are all paying for them now because when they get sick they go to the emergency room and cant be denied treatment. The cost is then spread across everybody else and is a big reason why hospital prices (ever look at one of those itemized bills?) are so ridiculous. It would be far better and cheaper to care for them earlier and somewhere else since we are going to pay for it one way or the other.

Just so happens my Admiral is a 15 year veteran of the health care management services industry, I’ve got a little background served up with appetizers and Rum and cokes after work.

Let me see, last time I had an exam Tricare, which has the same payment schedule as medicare paid 65 bucks to the provider. The provider’s charge was 165 bucks. No one covers the difference, that (the loss) is sucked up by the provider. That 65 bucks covered his time, his assistants time, the overhead for the building, administration, records keeping, phone service et al.

I had to get a chest x-ray, the charge 221 bucks, Tricare covered 15.00 – that’s right 15 bucks. Do you really think ANYONE can deliver a chest x-ray, read it, store it etc..for 15 bucks?

My heart attack in 2000, charges, fully itemized – 58,000 for a 5 day stay. Tricare coverage – 13,780. I paid 7.56 a day for food, plus 12 bucks. Hospital lost 35,000 bucks – don’t even say they overcharged. They charged at a legally mandated cost plus 4% (community hospital) you’ll have to trust me on that, it’s cost + 4%.

Medicare payment schedules are putting hospitals out of business.

[sck5]

"Medicare payment schedules are putting hospitals out of business"

Sort of makes you wish that $12 billion a month we are spending in Iraq was put to better use back home. Sure could cure that payment schedule problem and then some.

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"Medicare payment schedules are putting hospitals out of business"

Sort of makes you wish that $12 billion a month we are spending in Iraq was put to better use back home. Sure could cure that payment schedule problem and then some.

Seen any of my posts regard Iraq funding? It's all deficit spending.

That's just what we need, deficit spending to cover health care for meth addicts (I exaggerate on purpose).

Medicare in 2007 costs 181 billion, federal expenditures, FWIW that is 3.1 % of GDP. In theory the 12 billion a month would about double the money - multiple choice question for you:

Would the 'extra' money have gone to
a) Increased payments for services rendered so hospitals providing the services were not financially ruined
b) Increased cost of administration (say new computers and desks for the employee's of the government, new lovely buildings in some senators district)
c) More and better coverage to the present medicare 'customers'.
d) Expanded customer base by extending 'rights' to others (thereby driving more hospitals under by increasing the percentage of customers not paying for services on at least a @ cost basis).


Correct answer, historically speakly is B, If dem's are in charge, then B and D anything else is fantasy and wishful thinking.

I'll stipulate A) and C) is the intent - generally of both parties, but it is never delivered.