Health Care Reform - A Modest Proposal
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Perhaps just euthenise all retiree without health insurance and force all prisoners on a life tariff or death row to become immediate enforced organ donors.
------------------------------------ "When Belly Full, Chin Hit Chest" Confucius 502BC
-
Perhaps just euthenise all retiree without health insurance and force all prisoners on a life tariff or death row to become immediate enforced organ donors.
------------------------------------ "When Belly Full, Chin Hit Chest" Confucius 502BC
Dalek Dave wrote:
Perhaps just euthenise all retiree without health insurance and force all prisoners on a life tariff or death row to become immediate enforced organ donors.
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance and pharma companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks.
Better yet, let the government specify covered drugs and negotiate the costs. The VA does that and pays an average of 58% less for covered drugs. Changing the social security payout helps those with the largest benefit more than those with minimum benefit, who are least able to pay for medications that might be keeping them out of the hospital.
Oakman wrote:
3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad.
Medicaid should disappear under any "universal coverage" plan. Currently the states fund a significant portion of Medicaid, I wonder how badly they'll get screwed under the new regime.
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life.
The immediate result will be that every treatment will change prognosis by at least a year, with the most expensive treatments projecting a 5 yr. improvement. As the facts prove them wrong, they'll just be replaced by new unproven miracle treatments.
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
But will they be allowed to vote?
Oakman wrote:
6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
The problem with these is that most of the takers will blow their lump sum payments, and end up back on the welfare roles. The program will be come known as the "Bag lady creation program", and the cost to the taxpayer will double as we hav
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half.
This would pretty much effectively deny patients at the end of their life access to palliative care, including analgesics, antiemetics, palliative chemo/radiotherapy, active ventilation, etc. There are a lot of things (especially cancers) that are guaranteed going to kill you but with symptomatic treatment that end can be made a lot more comfortable. Decent medical care is not just about extending life indefinitely...
- F
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
With an aging population, Social Security and Healthcare provisioning will rise and is most likely to be condemned as unaffordable irrespective of the type or style of politics followed. It is a problem not unique to the United States. Just like the USA, the UK has future financial worries with regards to its Social Security and Healthcare programs. Somehow, the financial burdens will need to be satisfied. How you deal with the subject will ultimately define how civilized the electorate will view you as, which will then have implications at the ballot box (voting booth), if not sooner (hint of civil unrest etc if we get it wrong).
-
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half.
This would pretty much effectively deny patients at the end of their life access to palliative care, including analgesics, antiemetics, palliative chemo/radiotherapy, active ventilation, etc. There are a lot of things (especially cancers) that are guaranteed going to kill you but with symptomatic treatment that end can be made a lot more comfortable. Decent medical care is not just about extending life indefinitely...
- F
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life. A better plan would be to stop burning all the cannabis seized at our borders, and instead divert it as ree palliative treatment for those with a life expectancy of less than one year. And maybe we could solve a lot of problems in Afghanistan by outbidding the Taliban for the annual poppy crop. Decent medical care doesn't mean the taxpayers should fund every possible symptomatic treatment. Reasonable pain management is one thing, expensive treatments with marginal benefits are another.
-
Oakman wrote:
1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance and pharma companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks.
Better yet, let the government specify covered drugs and negotiate the costs. The VA does that and pays an average of 58% less for covered drugs. Changing the social security payout helps those with the largest benefit more than those with minimum benefit, who are least able to pay for medications that might be keeping them out of the hospital.
Oakman wrote:
3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad.
Medicaid should disappear under any "universal coverage" plan. Currently the states fund a significant portion of Medicaid, I wonder how badly they'll get screwed under the new regime.
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life.
The immediate result will be that every treatment will change prognosis by at least a year, with the most expensive treatments projecting a 5 yr. improvement. As the facts prove them wrong, they'll just be replaced by new unproven miracle treatments.
Oakman wrote:
4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
But will they be allowed to vote?
Oakman wrote:
6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
The problem with these is that most of the takers will blow their lump sum payments, and end up back on the welfare roles. The program will be come known as the "Bag lady creation program", and the cost to the taxpayer will double as we hav
Rob Graham wrote:
Better yet, let the government specify covered drugs and negotiate the costs. The VA does that and pays an average of 58% less for covered drugs.
Wouldn't it be simpler to give folks a map to the nearest Walmart? My Doctor's practice actually competes with Walmart with 30 day scripts at $3.99 and 90 day scripts @ 9.99
Rob Graham wrote:
Changing the social security payout helps those with the largest benefit more than those with minimum benefit, who are least able to pay for medications that might be keeping them out of the hospital.
Doesn't paying for drugs reward those who contributed least to society, whereas increasing the benefit rewards those who contributed most - but there's probably a compromise in there that would put a ceiling and a floor on the swap.
Rob Graham wrote:
The immediate result will be that every treatment will change prognosis by at least a year, with the most expensive treatments projecting a 5 yr. improvement
Then we'll just have to go by track records up until now and insist that all drugs funded will need to have a five-year track record.
Rob Graham wrote:
But will they be allowed to vote?
Of course. The zombie vote is extremely important in some areas - Chicago, for instance. I certainly wasn't suggesting we tamper with Democracy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem with these is that most of the takers will blow their lump sum payments, and end up back on the welfare roles.
No welfare for those who took the buyout. But free euthanasia.
Rob Graham wrote:
as we have to support all those 72+ matrons
What makes you think they won't throw one last glorious Chippendale's party and go the way Nelson Rockefeller did?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
With an aging population, Social Security and Healthcare provisioning will rise and is most likely to be condemned as unaffordable irrespective of the type or style of politics followed. It is a problem not unique to the United States. Just like the USA, the UK has future financial worries with regards to its Social Security and Healthcare programs. Somehow, the financial burdens will need to be satisfied. How you deal with the subject will ultimately define how civilized the electorate will view you as, which will then have implications at the ballot box (voting booth), if not sooner (hint of civil unrest etc if we get it wrong).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With an aging population, Social Security and Healthcare provisioning will rise and is most likely to be condemned as unaffordable irrespective of the type or style of politics followed.
Well, that's sorta why Obama and I are both trying to come up with answers. As Rob pointed out, we'd cut close to 80% of the cost of our healthcare, by eliminating the extremely ineffective but extremely lucrative treatments used to extend life for a few days during the last six months of living.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Better yet, let the government specify covered drugs and negotiate the costs. The VA does that and pays an average of 58% less for covered drugs.
Wouldn't it be simpler to give folks a map to the nearest Walmart? My Doctor's practice actually competes with Walmart with 30 day scripts at $3.99 and 90 day scripts @ 9.99
Rob Graham wrote:
Changing the social security payout helps those with the largest benefit more than those with minimum benefit, who are least able to pay for medications that might be keeping them out of the hospital.
Doesn't paying for drugs reward those who contributed least to society, whereas increasing the benefit rewards those who contributed most - but there's probably a compromise in there that would put a ceiling and a floor on the swap.
Rob Graham wrote:
The immediate result will be that every treatment will change prognosis by at least a year, with the most expensive treatments projecting a 5 yr. improvement
Then we'll just have to go by track records up until now and insist that all drugs funded will need to have a five-year track record.
Rob Graham wrote:
But will they be allowed to vote?
Of course. The zombie vote is extremely important in some areas - Chicago, for instance. I certainly wasn't suggesting we tamper with Democracy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem with these is that most of the takers will blow their lump sum payments, and end up back on the welfare roles.
No welfare for those who took the buyout. But free euthanasia.
Rob Graham wrote:
as we have to support all those 72+ matrons
What makes you think they won't throw one last glorious Chippendale's party and go the way Nelson Rockefeller did?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler to give folks a map to the nearest Walmart? My Doctor's practice actually competes with Walmart with 30 day scripts at $3.99 and 90 day scripts @ 9.99
That takes care of generics, but doesn't touch patent protected drugs like Lipitor (probably the most common and effective Cholesterol reducing drug, arguably an important preventive of heart surgery). Given that Walmart is able to negotiate that kind of pricing on generics, one would think the government should do even better. I do agree, however that the present part D crap is just a plan to fund profits for the pharma companies, with the active complicity of the health insurance industry, and needs overhaul.
Oakman wrote:
What makes you think they won't throw one last glorious Chippendale's party and go the way Nelson Rockefeller did?
The possibility seems slim. I can't recall ever hearing of a member of the fair sex succumbing in such a fashion. Nelson only adds credence to my argument.
-
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life. A better plan would be to stop burning all the cannabis seized at our borders, and instead divert it as ree palliative treatment for those with a life expectancy of less than one year. And maybe we could solve a lot of problems in Afghanistan by outbidding the Taliban for the annual poppy crop. Decent medical care doesn't mean the taxpayers should fund every possible symptomatic treatment. Reasonable pain management is one thing, expensive treatments with marginal benefits are another.
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
With an aging population, Social Security and Healthcare provisioning will rise and is most likely to be condemned as unaffordable irrespective of the type or style of politics followed. It is a problem not unique to the United States. Just like the USA, the UK has future financial worries with regards to its Social Security and Healthcare programs. Somehow, the financial burdens will need to be satisfied. How you deal with the subject will ultimately define how civilized the electorate will view you as, which will then have implications at the ballot box (voting booth), if not sooner (hint of civil unrest etc if we get it wrong).
If we are going to have the government supply health care as some sort of human right, than I demand my right to it even if the last 30 seconds of my life cost society a trillion dollars. Don't force me to accept this kind of pathetically insane nonsense and then tell me I am not qualified. What that really says, just as with abortion, is that the government should have the power to determine who is and who is not a human being and to exterminate those who fail the test.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life. A better plan would be to stop burning all the cannabis seized at our borders, and instead divert it as ree palliative treatment for those with a life expectancy of less than one year. And maybe we could solve a lot of problems in Afghanistan by outbidding the Taliban for the annual poppy crop. Decent medical care doesn't mean the taxpayers should fund every possible symptomatic treatment. Reasonable pain management is one thing, expensive treatments with marginal benefits are another.
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
Sure about that? http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth10_e.php[^]
John Carson
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With an aging population, Social Security and Healthcare provisioning will rise and is most likely to be condemned as unaffordable irrespective of the type or style of politics followed.
Well, that's sorta why Obama and I are both trying to come up with answers. As Rob pointed out, we'd cut close to 80% of the cost of our healthcare, by eliminating the extremely ineffective but extremely lucrative treatments used to extend life for a few days during the last six months of living.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
As Rob pointed out, we'd cut close to 80% of the cost of our healthcare, by eliminating the extremely ineffective but extremely lucrative treatments used to extend life for a few days during the last six months of living.
Both life and death has its price tag. If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good. What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions. But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity). Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
Sure about that? http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth10_e.php[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Sure about that?
Absolutely. The page you refrred to doesn't address in any way, shape, manner or form, the issue at hand. I am delighted to hear that the cost of dying is decreasing thanks to whatever - but that doesn't amount to a bowl of beans when it comes to when do the great majority of us spend 80% of the total we spend on healthcare. You might as well have sent us to CSS's favorite porn site for all you added to the discussion. Here's a couple of other yhings I've learned: 80% of all healthcare costs in the US are incurred by 20% of the population. 70% of the healthcare costs in the U.S. are created by the treatment of chronic deseases and folks over 65 and ten time more likely to have a chronic disease than those under 45. Fact: Accoring to WHO, in the year 2005, 55 million people died, and chronic diseases were responsible for 35 million of these deaths. That number is twice the number of deaths due to infectious diseases (including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria), maternal and perinatal conditions, and nutritional deficiencies combined. Fact: A 20 year-old smoker has less risk of developing cancer in the next 10 years than does a 80 year-old who never smoked in his life. And a 20-year old who eats a poor diet and rarely exercises has a greater chance of living another decade than does an 80 year-old who eats a good diet and exercises every day. The impact of smoking and inactivity pale in comparison to the impact a few extra decades of senescence has on a person's health prospects. For more enlightement, Google "biodemography. I've got to get back to designing starship hulls. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
If we are going to have the government supply health care as some sort of human right, than I demand my right to it even if the last 30 seconds of my life cost society a trillion dollars. Don't force me to accept this kind of pathetically insane nonsense and then tell me I am not qualified. What that really says, just as with abortion, is that the government should have the power to determine who is and who is not a human being and to exterminate those who fail the test.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve. Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
-
Oakman wrote:
As Rob pointed out, we'd cut close to 80% of the cost of our healthcare, by eliminating the extremely ineffective but extremely lucrative treatments used to extend life for a few days during the last six months of living.
Both life and death has its price tag. If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good. What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions. But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity). Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good.
I already have - signed, and sealed.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions.
Fine - as long as they have the money to pay for it (including the new luxury tax) I am simply suggesting that the American taxpayer not have to chip in to the medical profession's and the insurance profession's retirement funds.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity).
They should discuss with God, Mother Nature, The Horned God, Bhuddha, Kali, The Great Spirit, the nearest biologist, or their mommy about the unfairness of life. We are talking about whether or not a treatment funded by the American taxpayers is going to do any real good.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
Bullshite. Refusing to pay at gunpoint for someone else's fond and foolish attempts to live a few more days at my expense is in the highest traditions of libertarianism and the American Republic. Pickking my pocket because the almighty state has decreed that everyone gets all the medicine possible is a perfect of example of tolitarianism be it called fascism, communisms, socialism, or Jeffersonianism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
None of this will work
That's why I called it "A Modest Proposal."
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes
Why limit it to those over 62 - make it a rule across the board. {evil grin icon missing}
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve. Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve.
Actually, I agree with that. The people who voted for Obama should get exactly what they asked for. (Thats a curse,btw).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation.
The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.