National Health Care

[mmonroe]

Lets just throw some ideas out there... what do you think would be some positive steps to take care of our national health care issue?

Like, maybe offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices?
Or say, a static tax of $5 a month out of your paycheck, to perhaps make a dent in the deficit?

I believe it would take a combination of things to fix health care... lets just not follow canada on this one.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Well we COULD ban fast food, firearms, and tobacco....


But that might drive up violent crime, so it's kind of a wash.

[kevinpate]

I've given up the latter two, but hands off the tater tots, cause i could always buy back the firearms

[mmonroe]

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.

[Blazerfan11]

Offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices? 43% of r & d is done by them, the rest is done by the tax payers (via universities etc...) I say that is a break enough...they need to chill on the advertising and taking doctors to puerto rico for power point presentations to cut costs. Hello? LOL

[mmonroe]

I just asked for ideas... But I would also ask, who do you think are the major players in health care who keep costs so high? There has to be a way to take them down a few notches to help alleviate costs.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.

Sorry man, I already pay out the nose for my health care...You'll never get me to willingly give up MORE for somebody else's...Or tax me for it ON TOP OF what I already pay privately.

[mmonroe]

maybe there could be a solution to cover you so you don't have to pay for private health care...

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

[mmonroe]

OGTS, you have seen bruce almighty...

But always count on someone to turn the conversation south. I think we need to get out of the current mindset about health care and turn to some non-conventional ways of thinking.

People say, I already pay for it privately, or my job takes care of it. Well, your private company may drop you one day, or you may lose your job. Everything is not set in stone.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Yeah, because the writers of Bruce Almighty coined the phrase? I've been saying that for over 30 years and I certainly didn't invent it.


As for the conversation turning south, my post may have been in jest, but it rings of truth. Getting people to agree on universal or socialized healthcare is pretty much unpossible. Some pretty smart people on this site (including doctors) have discussed it WAY above my level of understanding of the matter, and nobody changed each other's mind. Put that on the national stage, throw some partisanship in there, and inject a good healthy dose of incompetent bloviating press...And VOILA! Wedge issue with 10,000 different axes to grind.

[RabidRed]

I just asked for ideas... But I would also ask, who do you think are the major players in health care who keep costs so high? There has to be a way to take them down a few notches to help alleviate costs.

My suggestion of a place to start is revising the tort laws dealing with health care. If you look at what doctors and hospitals have to pay in malpractice protection you would see a great deal of what ails the health care system in the US.

I think we should go to another tort system much like England's. If you sue and lose you pay the party who won court costs and lawyer's fees. I believe they also limit what a lawyer can make on a judgement. We would save a lot of lawsuits and probably have fewer lawyers in the process.

Just to be plain...

You Need a New Lawyer When...
1. During your initial consultation he tries to sell you Amway.
2. He tells you that his last good case was a "Budweiser".
3. When the prosecutors see who your lawyer is, they high-five each other.
4. He picks the jury by playing "duck-duck-goose".
5. During the trial you catch him playing his Gameboy.
6. He asks a hostile witness to "pull my finger".
7. A prison guard is shaving your head.
8. Every couple of minutes he yells, "I call Jack Daniels to the stand!" and proceeds to drink a shot.
9. He frequently gives juror No. 4 the finger.
10. He places a large "No Refunds" sign on the defense table.
11. He begins closing arguments with, "As Ally McBeal once said..."
12. Just before he says "Your Honor," he makes those little quotation marks in the air with his fingers.
13. The sign in front of his law office reads "Practicing Law Since 2:25 P.M."
14. Whenever his objection is overruled, he tells the judge, "Whatever".
15. He giggles every time he hears the word "briefs".

[oneforone]

When I think of National Health Care the first thing I think of is the DMV.

Picture health care being ran like the DMV or FEMA.

Our government screws up everything they have their hands in now. The last thing I want them doing is making my health care descisions.

I can see it now, sorry sir you cannot have your much needed surgery. Congress has cut back those kinds of surgeries until the next Fiscal Year.

However, here is a nice pamplet read.

Oh and BTW if you want to see National Healhcare in action just stop by any VA hospital. The VA runs the worst medical system in the world. I would rather be seen by drunk Veternarian then a sober VA Doctor.

[metro]

Offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices? 43% of r & d is done by them, the rest is done by the tax payers (via universities etc...) I say that is a break enough...they need to chill on the advertising and taking doctors to puerto rico for power point presentations to cut costs. Hello? LOL

Blazerfan, I'm curious if you have anything to back up specific claims you're making. I do marketing in this industry, not saying it's a perfect industry by any means, but some of your claims lie far fetched to me. Pharma companies that do R&D on a drug to my knowledge are almost completely funded by the pharma company or a partnership of pharma companies. They own the "patent" to a particular type of drug or compound. Universities are either funded through themselves, grants, both or pharma companies. If a university is doing a study for a pharma company, they are usually funded from the pharma company for that study. Yes universities do conduct a ton of studies with their own private funding or through grants.

I'm all for lower prescription drug prices/better healthcare, however I don't see that happening anytime soon unfortunately.

FYI..the FDA has become real strict on "perks" given to physicians like they used to. Flying a Dr. and his wife to a 3-4 day luxury vacation is no longer the norm. They do still have conferences for physicians doing the research trials, however they are very business related these days much similar to any other industry. There are hours worth of powerpoint presentations, but they are also going over protocol, procedures, drug efficacy and safety, etc. I imagine most people want their doctors familiar as possible with proper protocol and procedure in different scenarios, especially with new medications or procedures. Most conferences I've ever seen are in the U.S. and perks severely diminished before I even got in the industry.

On another note, isn't there a more appropriate forum for this topic than OKC Metro Area?

[solitude]

When I think of National Health Care the first thing I think of is the DMV.

Picture health care being ran like the DMV or FEMA.

Our government screws up everything they have their hands in now. The last thing I want them doing is making my health care descisions.

I can see it now, sorry sir you cannot have your much needed surgery. Congress has cut back those kinds of surgeries until the next Fiscal Year.

However, here is a nice pamplet read.

Oh and BTW if you want to see National Healhcare in action just stop by any VA hospital. The VA runs the worst medical system in the world. I would rather be seen by drunk Veternarian then a sober VA Doctor.

The government should be involved in the FINANCING of health care - but not providing it. So, the VA is a bad example. A more fitting example for government-financed healthcare would be Medicare. How many people are willing to go on record as opposing Medicare? Do you have a mother, father, grandparents that you propose leaving on their own for their healthcare?

Do you propose simply leaving our inhumane system it as it is? Insurance companies making decisions on your care based on profit? Millions without insurance to face huge deposits for needed cancer treatments? What's your plan?

I agree with Metro - this should be moved from OKC Metro Talk.

[johnnyincog]

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.

us employed population is around 150 million. health care spending in united states is around 2 trillion per year. the government pays about half of that. hillary's plan to cover uninsured is estimated to cost around 200 billion/yr.

this thread should be moved.

[hipsterdoofus]

Doesn't seem like the right forum for this topic...

[mmonroe]

OK.. so what would be a better forum? I just picked one.

@solitude. You bring up a good point about Medicare.
@RabidRed. Thanks for the laughter.

[PennyQuilts]

I also think a petitioner/plaintiff should pay the other side's legal fees and court costs if they lose.

Seems like the more the government subsidizes healthcare costs, the more they charge - and why not if they know they will get paid? I deal with indigents who have Medicaid. Up to the cap, the social workers, doctors and clients spend like a drunken sailor. As soon as the cap is reached, it is all over. Not fair to the poor sap who really needs money beyond the cap, and not fair to the rest of us saps paying taxes for the rest of them. Stupid system. I completely agree that the best way to "pay" for health care is for individuals to lose weight, get off their butts and move, quit smoking and start living smart.

[solitude]

I completely agree that the best way to "pay" for health care is for individuals to lose weight, get off their butts and move, quit smoking and start living smart.

All of that is great, but that won't stop a tumor from growing in the brain and it sure as hell won't pay for the healthcare costs involved.

[PennyQuilts]

I don't think too many of us would begrudge helping out in an emergency. The best way to pay for that is to make sure our dollars aren't eaten up with chronic and avoidable illnesses. Moreover, there are other ways to get healthcare besides a national system. A lot of people make decisions in choosing jobs and education with that in mind. I worked for the government most of my life FOR THE BENEFITS. I could have made a ton more money doing something else but it was a choice I made FOR THE BENEFITS. Other people may make different choices and I respect that. But I don't think people who arrange their lives to make SURE they have health coverage should have to be penalized because other people think they should be able to make other choices and still have their health benefits covered by the public, i.e., me.

The same argument could be made that people who don't go to school or continue their education or work should be entitled to an equivalent salary as those folks who studied hard to go to school, or otherwise worked dawn to dusk to have a good paying job.

[solitude]

I don't think too many of us would begrudge helping out in an emergency. The best way to pay for that is to make sure our dollars aren't eaten up with chronic and avoidable illnesses. Moreover, there are other ways to get healthcare besides a national system. A lot of people make decisions in choosing jobs and education with that in mind. I worked for the government most of my life FOR THE BENEFITS. I could have made a ton more money doing something else but it was a choice I made FOR THE BENEFITS. Other people may make different choices and I respect that. But I don't think people who arrange their lives to make SURE they have health coverage should have to be penalized because other people think they should be able to make other choices and still have their health benefits covered by the public, i.e., me.

The same argument could be made that people who don't go to school or continue their education or work should be entitled to an equivalent salary as those folks who studied hard to go to school, or otherwise worked dawn to dusk to have a good paying job.

Part of the appeal of Universal Health Care is to remove the "benefit" obstacle as per employment. There are people working in jobs they hate because they must stay in order to continue their health care benefits. Especially if you (or a family member) are already sick. First World people all over the globe hear that and think we're crazy. What kind of system is that?

You should have been free to pursue your dreams back when you say you could have made a ton of money - instead you stayed with the workaday job - for the health care benefits! There's millions just like you -- and they resent it. And well they should. The state of your health should never depend on the size of your wealth - or the status of any job. Nobody should EVER be in the position of not being able to make changes in their careers, move on to another field of work, start a new business, etc. simply because they - or a family member - are not in perfect health. We must disconnect the employment/health care trap that many find themselves in through no cause of their own.

[mmonroe]

A GREAT point solitude. If for just a moment, we could forget about, "Well, this will happen if that happens" scenarios and try to establish a forethought on what could happen optimistically. If all the planets were to align per-say. Things are the way they are because we choose to let them stay the same, thinking nothing can be done to change it because of all the "horrific" scenarios that could occur. Maybe its just that lack of thought because of self ignorants or self arrogance. I KNOW what some of the problems are with a universal health care system, but still... there has to be some opportunities to change SOMETHING.

i'll be getting off my soapbox now.

[PennyQuilts]

Nobody should EVER be in the position of not being able to make changes in their careers, move on to another field of work, start a new business, etc. simply because they - or a family member - are not in perfect health. We must disconnect the employment/health care trap that many find themselves in through no cause of their own.

Honestly, I cannot imagine this mentality. Who says we are entitled to the job of our dreams? SOMEONE has to work the sewage plants, the dead animal clean up and the chicken plucking jobs. Just who is going to take those jobs if we have some sort of highbrow freedom to do whatever we want to fulfill ourselves?

I am well educated, by choice, so I don't have to work those jobs and can make a living in something I can tolerate. People make choices all the time about their jobs and plenty of them are going to end up with the cruddy ones because they haven't got better options - the good jobs go to the people with skills and education. The only "right" anyone has is the right to try to improve their skills so they can compete for the good jobs.

The fact that I might have a sick family member is just the luck of the draw and something that tends to happen to ALL families at one point or another (just lost my mother last year and I was her sole caregiver - since then, people have poured out of the woodwork). I had no idea so many people have "been there" although it is obvious if I 'd open my eyes.

There is a notion afoot that somehow we should not have to slow down or make hard choices simply because we are sick or have a sick relative. That it should not result in a personal sacrifice of our time, money or overall happiness. From my perspective, sickness in families is part of life. Families - all families - adjust and make sacrificies because it is family and that is what you do when it comes to loved ones. If families make smart choices, the funds are there. If they don't, they have got their heads in the sand because if anyone thinks illness and old age won't come knocking, they aren't paying attention. Alzheimers, strokes, diabetes, heart disease, the Big C. Trust me, it is coming. One way or the other. My suggestion is to get saving and make smart plans.

WHY should I be guaranteed health coverage, no matter what employment/life choices I make?

I just shelled out $450.00 for my DOG at the vet, yesterday. I'm not happy about it because it costs money but I didn't blink because it needed to be done. That dog is family. I'd do the same thing for my mom or sister or child or husband. A lot of people, before they'd shell out 10 bucks for their Aunt Sally, would be complaining that they "shouldn't have to pay this." Why? Who came up with the idea that our health care costs should not be out of pocket or a personal responsibility. NOTHING is more important than our health. People who buy jet skies and take luxurious vacations and multiple trips with the kiddies to Disneyworld seem to think someone else should pay for their kids' vaccinations or their gall bladder surgery. That someone is ME and other tax payers. I couldn't afford jet skies or Disney trips when my kids were coming up. I am not complaining, they turned out fine.

I take jobs with health benefits because illness is a fact of life that I have to plan for. That is fundamental. The big problem I see is that young people think they are bullet proof and take employment routes that don't consider the obvious. By the time they are in their 30's and 40's illness comes knocking (big surprise) and they may be caught without proper health coverage. Whose fault is THAT? It isn't like it is a horrible surprise. Many employees tend to jump from job to job and get caught in the problem of having pre-existing conditions or no health benefits as a result. Again, whose decision is it to make those jumps? Ignoring the problem does NOT fix it. The solution being offered by some appears to be, essentially, to be able to do what you want, not exercise self restraint and insist that someone else needs to pay your medical bills so you have that "freedom."

The last time I had that sort of safety net I was about 14 years old and living with my mom. Part of being an adult is making good choices and making the sacrifices that come with that.

Health care is out there for people who make good choices. So make good choices. For those young people negotiating for jobs, change the corporate climate by restricting your job hunts to places that offer benefits - you'll all benefit.

[Midtowner]

I also think a petitioner/plaintiff should pay the other side's legal fees and court costs if they lose.

You'll have three groups of plaintiffs then.

First, there'll be the poor who are judgment proof anyhow and won't care if they loose because they have no assets for the prevailing party to go after.

Second, there's the wealthy who will actually be able to afford the risk.

Finally, there's the middle class. Oftentimes, such a rule will keep a meritorious suit out of court because of the fear that it'll be a loser and the already injured party will lose even more.

Since you've been a lawyer for awhile, you should know how wildly unpredictable a jury can be. The English Rule system has some merit to it. I think I'd rather see one of two things -- bifurcated proceedings wherein first, the jury determines guilt/damages and second, the jury awards attorneys fees; or give judges more discretion to award attorneys fees when cockamamie cases are filed. Automatically awarding attorneys fees, however, is a really bad idea.