Posted on 08/18/2009 12:28:35 PM PDT by street_lawyer
America was not built on the backs of politicians and government bailouts. It was built on private enterprise and free, hard-working, God-loving Americans. I had to laugh when this so-called brilliant President told us that he was going to create thousands of new jobs.
It won’t matter how much taxpayer debt is poured into Work Progress Administration type jobs. It is not going to work. The American economy was built on private enterprise. It’s been six months since President Obama’s $787 billion dollar taxpayer expenditure was passed into law. Since they 2.8 million more Americans not only don’t have healthcare, they don’t even have jobs. Private enterprise can create
(Excerpt) Read more at georgiaright.com ...
I can't imagine another way out that will not draw us into the disastrous slippery slope that will be co-ops or "expanded medicaid" or other euphemisms...we need to privatize, make portable and drive down costs by opening a free market that means that the 3 companies selling insurance in MD would have to compete with the 46 in PA.
Performance based outcomes will propel the better providers to the top and the market will sort out the lesser programs. 25% of the "uninsured" are "the invincibles" (the 18-25 year olds) that feel no need to buy insurance...if they do not buy insurance they can contract with private fee for service firms that will compete and possibly make loans or give them credit for procedures.
The higher risk 50-65 uninsured (ineligible for medicare, but struggle with no coverage, low income, job loss or pre-existing conditions) get assigned to a "risk pool" that better performing insurers will ultimately compete for, because they are able compete for them at reduced rates, giving them good coverage and reasonable rates.
The elderly will be covered by medicare and the indigent will be treated pro-bono by participating hospitals. I would like to see THAT pool covered by University Hospitals, many of whom have billion dollar grants behind the universities and should make use of the interns and younger doctors to keep the indigent covered, much as many law firms do.
Cut every penny given to non-profit dot.orgs. I would bet 50% or more of non-defense spending is being given to these communist black hole money pits.
I think we all agree that government regulation exists for one purpose. Socialists believe that capitalism results in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletarians. I can’t tell you when the first state began regulating the healthcare insurance companies, but as you know currently we have state government controlled insurance corporations.
The only difference between what we have now and what is being proposed is a move to centralize government control. As you point out, this is precisely the wrong direction in which to be moving. Your formula Privatization + Inter=State Sales + Individual Policies + Tort Reform = Healthcare Reform is exactly what should be done. I presume from the use of the term “privatization” you are suggesting that under the current state regulatory system there is too much government interference in the industry. If that is so, then I couldn’t’ agree more with you.
I’m not clear on how performance based outcomes would work in practice. I’m familiar with the term, but have not seen any specifics. If you know where I can find more information, I’d appreciate knowing about it.
I’m thinking that I don’t want my risk pool covering illnesses that are avoidable, and procedures that are elective. For example, treatment for drug addicts, HIV patients, coverage for abortions, sex changes, not even vasectomies, and certainly not nose jobs that are passed off as repairs of a deviate septum.
I like the idea of making University Hospitals perform surgery on those categories that I mentioned. Let the liberal treat the liberal, and leave those of us who are living healthy lives alone so that we don’t have to subsidize their lifestyle.
You also make a novel point. I have been assigned pro-bono cases that I wouldn’t take for a million dollars. I’m not wishing that on doctors, just because I don’t want the government telling us who we have to represent or treat. What if a good Christian doctor is assigned to perform an abortion on an indigent? Can you see Justice Sotomayor deciding that the rich white doctor should have his way and the poor Hispanic single mother and unknown father can’t have an abortion?
Yes. That state control would be the first change...to allow nationwide sales. People in MD can choose from 3 companies, PA can choose from dozens. Makes no sense.
The only difference between what we have now and what is being proposed is a move to centralize government control. As you point out, this is precisely the wrong direction in which to be moving. Your formula Privatization + Inter=State Sales + Individual Policies + Tort Reform = Healthcare Reform is exactly what should be done. I presume from the use of the term “privatization” you are suggesting that under the current state regulatory system there is too much government interference in the industry. If that is so, then I couldn’t’ agree more with you.
Absolutely no reason to prevent interstate sales.
I’m not clear on how performance based outcomes would work in practice. I’m familiar with the term, but have not seen any specifics. If you know where I can find more information, I’d appreciate knowing about it.
I think that just as Charter Schools (or any school for that matter) that consistently outperforms others, even though the NEA rails against testing (avoid that trap and substitute graduation stats) higher performing medical coverage groups should attract more prestige and more clients. Like any business, there will be some with better service, others with better salesmen, etc. But OUTCOME...let's say a 10-15% higher survivor rate among treatment of cancer or 30% better results in the non-surgical course of of diebetes, will manifest itself clearly.
I’m thinking that I don’t want my risk pool covering illnesses that are avoidable, and procedures that are elective. For example, treatment for drug addicts, HIV patients, coverage for abortions, sex changes, not even vasectomies, and certainly not nose jobs that are passed off as repairs of a deviate septum.
I should think that would be part of the criteria upon which you could judge a wider range of providers. Some may include those cases (in which case they will be more expensive) some won't. Because the providers will not be forced to treat them, there will be a greater choice of plans for you, including one that suits. Think 60plus instead of AARP. One may be more liberal than another.
I like the idea of making University Hospitals perform surgery on those categories that I mentioned. Let the liberal treat the liberal, and leave those of us who are living healthy lives alone so that we don’t have to subsidize their lifestyle.
In addition to it being appropriate, another consideration is that while colleges (even private institutions) are enjoying many millions (or BILLIONS) of tax advantages, the only thing that is getting more expensive faster rate is Education and to a large extent on OUR dollar, which is put into THEIR endowments.
Once again, the College will soon serve to further seperate classes and bring us into a form of elitism that has always SUPPOSED to have been anathema to a classless society. I believe Harvard, for instance with endowments in the BILLIONS should educate students for free, based on a pre-qualified lottery. A little digression, but part of my thinking on why they would be perfect vehicles for the indigent.
You also make a novel point. I have been assigned pro-bono cases that I wouldn’t take for a million dollars. I’m not wishing that on doctors, just because I don’t want the government telling us who we have to represent or treat. What if a good Christian doctor is assigned to perform an abortion on an indigent? Can you see Justice Sotomayor deciding that the rich white doctor should have his way and the poor Hispanic single mother and unknown father can’t have an abortion?
I think the regulatory aspect is moot at the point of free market health providers and becomes an agreement between them to draw a certain number of disadvantaged from the assigned risk pool. Sisters of Mercy would be exempt from abortion cases, etc. They would not be outfitted for it at any rate and would presumably have no staff that would be suited.
I may belabor this point but I just wanted to add to your cogent comments that if we had no insurance companies at all a lot of people would be out of business and since insurance companies invest in business it would hurt business. But I still like the idea of private healthcare savings plans. Tax deductable saving plans to be used only to pay for non-elective surgery or emergency treatment. Then instead of employer paying for insurance coverage directy they can give vouchers to workers to be used to pay for medical treatment. Finally, as you said, I can find the best doctors for the best price and pay them myself. As much as I love private industry, my payment goes to the doctor and not to the CEO of United Health Care Group who makes something like 50 million/yr. I'm not saying he is not worth it because net profits is probably around 900 million/yr. [mostly from investments not premiums]
No doubt, as a follow up to your suggestion, if we take government coverage mandates some company is going to insure only healthy lifestyles [don't know exactly how to determine who is healthy but for sure private enterprise can do it better than government might] Certainly a doctor examining a healthy person, weight, blood pressure, blood test, etc. might be a start.
If we were to make these comments in front of a 10 million person audience I don't have to tell you that we would be vilified in the press as being heartless, right-wing idiots. Of course the same people who would say that have no compunction about killing innocent babies, and old people; have no problem limiting executive compensation, to establish a much higher minimum wage; rob secured creditors so that unsecured union pension funds will get the money; I could go on but now I'm preaching to the choir.
P.S. I haven't come accross a bill with all these provisions but if I do I'll post it on my blog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.