Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Would be interested in more of your thoughts about the privatization of law enforcement for real. Advantages? Disadvantages? Interesting to hear it from an LEO standpoint.
(Edit: and do you think privatization works best in some parts of the CJ system and not other parts?)
Do you think that everyone who works for the gubmit works for the people too? Or is that perspective a personal position some govt workers take and others don't?
Again, you know me, not a fighter, these are not attack questions. I'm just someone interested in how others view things if you want to share.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Jody...I work for the government and the citizens ...We are all in the same boat.....You are right , government has it's share of mind boggling dysfunction...But so do some of the businesses in the private sector....There is only so much one person can do to fight this losing battle...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Norton, how many of these bums will pay the fine and what happens if they don't? They go to jail where I end up supporting them anyway? What? I fail to see how that will stop freeloaders.
thank you Jody, just trying to make a point
now to your questions: as you know from reading the ACA, those who can clearly afford to pay a healthcare monthly premium and refuse to get their own health insurance will, at income tax time, be assessed an additional tax.
You ask if they will go to jail if they don't pay?
No, as you know from your reading, of course no one goes to jail, they just pay more income tax.
As to how this will stop "freeloaders", well other than having them pay a tax, you are correct that they can continue to freeload.
But, WHEN they go to the hospital expecting a free ride from us taxpayers, their bill will be paid out of the "pool" money, that extra tax they themselves had to pay.
Is it a perfect system? of course not, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we have now, which is just dumping the cost on you and me in the form of higher monthly premiums. This is a serious effort to inject some sense of personal responsibility and make them man up, like you and I do when we make our monthly payments.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Yes lets give a greedy person the power to make a profit at the point of a gun. Lets give them the power to kidnap you and hold you in a locked room till you pay
Really freaking genius idea there.
Welcome to fascism AKA the republican Party
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
RJ, no, I don't trust the government. I don't work for them, I work for the citizens.
Utter bullsh#t.
Curt
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
I want to bring some recent information into this discussion.
From NBC news: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13689103-us-health-care-its-officially-a-mess-institute-says?lite
US health care: It's officially a mess, institute says
By Maggie Fox, NBC News
September 6, 2012, 7:26 pm
NBCNews.com
If banking were like health care, it would take days to get money out of an ATM because the records would be lost. If airlines were like health care, pilots would decide on their own which safety checks to make, if any. If shopping were like health care -- well, you get the picture.
It’s a mess, the Institute of Medicine says in a report released on Thursday. The U.S. health care system wasted $750 billion in 2009, about 30 percent of all health spending, on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. As many as 75,000 people who died in 2005 would have lived if they got the kind of care provided in the states with the best medical systems, the Institute found.
The report, issued just as candidates for Congress and for president make health care reform a central part of the national debate, doesn’t pull any punches. The panel of experts assembled by the Institute, an independent body that is supposed to provide a non-partisan last word on important issues, leaves no doubt that U.S. health care now is anything but the best in the world.
"The threats to Americans' health and economic security are clear and compelling, and it's time to get all hands on deck," says Mark Smith, president and CEO of the California HealthCare Foundation in Oakland and chairman of the panel.
"Our health care system lags in its ability to adapt, affordably meet patients' needs, and consistently achieve better outcomes."
But there's hope. "We have the know-how and technology to make substantial improvement on costs and quality. Our report offers the vision and road map to create a learning health care system that will provide higher quality and greater value," Smith says.
“What I am seeing around the country is that people are absolutely committed to reform,” says James Conway of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Massachusetts, who served on the panel.
“Whether you look at the Republican platform or the Democratic platform, you find in pretty strong language the importance of developing a high quality health care system.”
One of the biggest problems is that health insurers, hospitals and health systems don’t learn from their mistakes, the report says. Half of all health care professionals still neglect to wash their hands properly before seeing patients, even though it’s one of the main causes of infections that kill tens of thousands of patients every year.
An organized system that finds out what went wrong and where, and then provides for the health system to correct those mistakes right away would save money and lives. It’s possible in a computerized world, but it’s not happening on a systematic basis. Hospitals that report every single infection and ruthlessly track down where it came from have found they can cut infection rates to zero, for instance.
Yet just this week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a third of Americans have high blood pressure and only half of them have it under control. There are dozens of drugs to treat it, not to mention diet and exercise methods. It took 13 years for one of those drug types, the beta-blockers, to become the standard of care even after they had been clearly demonstrated to work, the report says.
What’s missing, the report says, is coordination. “What I see is people doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Everyone has their little initiative. And back at the ranch, the doctor, the individual provider, is drowning in the sea of initiatives,” Conway says. “What is missing is a much more systemic and collective response.”
The report points to two main problems. “One is the increasingly unmanageable complexity of the science of health care. During the past half-century, there has been an explosion of biomedical and clinical knowledge, with even more dazzling clinical capabilities just over the horizon,” the report says. But the current system doesn’t help providers learn this material and it doesn’t give them any incentive to apply it.
“Second is the ever-escalating cost of care, which is widely acknowledged to be wasteful and unsustainable. Unless ways are found to provide more efficient, lower-cost health care, more and more Americans will lose coverage of and access to care.”
Conway praises the Massachusetts health care system, which he says is organized with the patient in mind. The report also says government initiatives, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center are good ways to test and apply proven treatments and methods for paying for health care.
“Until we organize the health care system around the people we are privileged to serve, we aren’t going to figure it out,” Conway said. “I don’t think we have done that before -- we haven’t organized it around the person with cancer. That would be a remarkable change.”
Some ways to get there? Let people see what various treatments cost up front. Employers, who cover the health care costs of 55 percent of Americans, can help, too, the report says. They can use their buying power to demand high-quality, high-value health care, and get their employees involved in wellness programs.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Thanks Jody. Not my area of expertise by any stretch of the imagination. Was just curious.
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
By the way Jody correct me if I am wrong but you have your healthcare supplied by your employment (wich if it is from the government the taxpayers pay for--thus we subsidize YOUR healthcare).
Also you don't pay taxes on that benefit in the form of income taxes. Correct me if I am wrong but it is INCOME if everyone else has to pay for thier healthcare out of pocket.
If everyone who had thier healthcare supplied by their employer had to pay income taxes on that benefit (as they should) then we would have a much clearer debate and most likely everyone who is against a single payer system would miraculously switch sides.
The only reason half the people aren't bitching is because they get thier healthcare provided without seeing the actual cost.
You are just like the FREELOADERS you claim to despise.
But I am happy to pay your benefits through my taxes if that keeps a high quality Law Enforcement a public service rather than a corrupt private one.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
For example what does putting a cast on a broken leg cost?
That would depend on the nature of the injury. If you want a future where your broken leg is treated generically rather than optimally by sport medicine specialists then put cost ahead of quality.
Just remember that when you get that injury repaired there is about one chance to get it right to where you can climb at your limit again after rehab.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"I don't work for them, I work for the citizens."
That really is a hypocritical rationalization.
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2012 - 10:35pm PT
|
Ksolem, that is an excellent point. If cost is fixed and quality/satisfaction varies amongst providers, then the most qualified will end up with the longest waiting lists. And when you need emergency treatment it will be a shot in the dark in terms of good quality being available when you need it.
So let's say hypothetically we had a rating system where patients give feedback on their experience into some "national database" and docs or facilities below a certain level get the boot. But then what if there just aren't enough docs at a given quality threshold?
Present the problem to the electorate (or some congressional panel) and they vote to either lower the minimum patient satisfaction threshold or increase funding for doctors?
Devil is in the details, this stuff is complicated.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
then the most qualified will end up with the longest waiting lists.
Actually I think there is a very good chance that "the most qualified" will opt out of the system, setting up boutique practices, and we will see an even greater divide between the care which those with money can have and those who don't.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Interesting point Ksolem
However what about someone like me with no insurance. I go to the ER and cross my fingers. Afterwords for good or bad I end up with a bill I can never pay. Unless I win the lottery.
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
Ksolem respectfully that is not the issue.The issue is we don't know how much ANY treatment costs for ANY ailment. Why should there be one price for an insurance company, one price for someone paying out of pocket, and one price if the person has no insurance but recieves treatment paid for with U.S. tax dollars.
While our tax dollars are used to pay for the treatment (in the case where a person has no insurance and visits an emergency room). Why should an insurance company get a better deal than the U.S. taxpayers.
A broken leg should have a specific price to be treated (using the most complicated surgery and best recovery options as the benchmark for the most expensive price). You don't want to pay for that option and that outcome then here is the price for the second tier treatment this outcome and this treatment costs this much (documented price).
Every hospital and all doctors should have to post thier fee for service schedule. As treatment is provided and billed currently no one can tell how much it actually costs for that injury to be treated.
Yes I think a doctor should make more money than a construction worker but it is called Healthcare (the care part shouldn't be just about how much money is made to treat a patient).
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
When you look at the actual data of the universal healthcare systems in France, Germany, Japan, for example, you see the following:
*Actual fraud or "freeloading" represents 1/10th of 1 percent of overall healthcare spending
*Outcomes are far superior overall when compared to the US system.
Anecdotes are just that, anecdotal. The might stir up one's ire, but just have no real meaning in the overall scheme and benefit of a universal program. That's not to say that these cases should not be pursued and prosecuted.
Universal healthcare also provides the individual with much more mobility. Certain countries like France do indeed have labor laws that make things more difficult for employers to fire/hire than in the US, but you also see a much higher level of entrepreneurship per capita than in the US.
If you look at France's system, which is the number 1 rated system on the planet, you have a good mix of public/private coverage, the private covering the gap and elective procedures or costs such as plastic surgery or a private room, something that those with more money are free to purchase in order to have the extra comfort. Public coverage provides all the essentials and reimburses up 75% of cost if you are not below the poverty line. Thing is in France a visit to your GP is 23 € and everyone (without supplemental private insurance)is reimbursed 17 €. Plus you pay out of pocket and are reimbursed later, so you do indeed see/feel the real cost of care.
The debate in the US should not be what other system should we "cookie cutter" apply, nor should the debate include the anecdotal faults of other systems - because yes, they are not perfect - to not do anything to reform the US system.
What we should be doing is asking the following questions as a starting point:
*Why do countries like France, Germany, and Japan (to name three) spend one-half (Fr and Germany) and one-third (Japan) per capita per year when compared to the US and have far better overall outcomes?
*What of these systems that works well can we apply to the US or at the least, what can we learn?
Other questions could include the economic benefits of having a health workforce or healthcare that costs less. It's not by chance that GM has moved factories from Detroit to just across the border in Canada: healthcare costs in Canada are cheaper and the company does not have to spend time managing it.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
Many people object to "universal healthcare" because they don't want to pay for other people's healthcare.
What they don't understand is that they are already paying for other people's healthcare, but are doing so in a very inefficient, convoluted, wasteful manner.
What do you think happens when an indigent person shows up at a hospital with a heart attack? Is he turned away becauses he can't pay? Of course not. Is he denied bypass surgery because he cannot pay? Of course not. This is, afterall, a civilized country.
Do you think that the hospital "eats" all of the costs of that indigent person's care? Of course not. The hospital passes the costs on to everyone else by a variety of legal book-keeping maneuvers, Medicare/Medicaid billing, etc., etc.
What most people also don't understand is the "privatization" of medicine has a host of very serious consequences that are bad for everyone involved - except for the corporate CEO and shareholders.
Patients are not "customers." The doctor/patient relationship is nothing like a merchant/customer relationship.
Medical care delivered under a business model ALWAYS puts profits ahead of compassion.
The supposed benefits of "efficieny" that might be achieved through business models are not worth the human toll that invariably follows when paper-pushing MBAs make medical decisions from corporate HQ.
Conservative argue that government bureaucrats will make even worse decisions than corporate HQ. But historically the opposite has been proved true, over and over and over...
Government-run universal healthcare is the only way to go.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Who wrote the Affordable Care Act? Obama? Lobbyists? I believe it was written by lobbyists, and I doubt they were lobbying for a universal single-payer system. Suspicious? I am.
What options for solution has conservative ideology brought forth?
That conservative ideology spites itself. It argues against coverage for all because poor and/or lazy people might get something free. But that leads to all of us paying the continuing higher prices and receiving lower quality service. Would conservatives prefer that over paying less and covering the lazy freeloaders? Emotional rhetoric trumps their rational minds.
I don't trust the government, that is a no-brainer, IMO. Why would we trust the private insurance and care providers any more than we trust government? And in our current system (which includes the super PACs via Citizens United ruling) the private providers have too great an influence over government. There is nothing free-market about that. Health care in US is not functioning in a free market, it is rigged for influential private profit interests. Our entire economy is thus. Shall we pay for the freeloaders who earn less than $30K per year, or for those who rig the system and collect poor Jody's taxes?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"... for those who rig the system and collect poor Jody's taxes?"
So that those taxes (and everyone else's in the city where Jody serves) can then pay Jody's salary, benefits, and pension?
'Government Sucks'? Then don't work for it.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
"Many people object to "universal healthcare" because they don't want to pay for other people's healthcare.
in addition to Locker's comment, damn few people know that part of your healthcare monthly premium is paid by your insurer directly to the emergency rooms to help pay for those unpaid bills left by those who show up without health insurance
Seriously, did YOU know this?
It is a fact, and if we could get everyone insured then the medical field numbers crunchers feel that the overall cost of YOUR paying for the free loaders would be mitigated.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Pull the pension investments out of the health insurance companies...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|