Proposal to fix Healthcare System
From what I understand, Hillary's plan is not modeled on the Canadian system. Her original effort in 1993 probably was.
Anyway you cut it, healthcare is expensive and subject to rationing. Either through waiting lines or by ability to pay.
My son, Brian worked in admitting at a major research hospital for a couple of years. He says, what's the big deal about universal coverage, we have it already. By law, (at least in Ohio) when someone comes into the emergency room they can't be turned away, regardless of the ability to pay. Brian says that the hospital collected only about 8% of billing to uninsured. Hmmm, who pays? The hospital makes it up somewhere. ergo, someone pays including government, businesses, and folks who pay for insurance.
I sold health insurance for a year before returning to corporate life in 1989. It was a lot cheaper then than now. It's not hard to understand why so many people, who don't work for a major corporation who buys it for them, don't have insurance. Consider if a person has little or no net worth, he has no incentive to spend money to protect it. Especially when to get meaningful coverage, it could cost 30% to 50% of his annual take home. Don't think so? Consider a self employed person making $25.00 per hour, without benefits. Working full time that comes out to around $50,000 per year. What's his take home? First deduct 16% for FICA leaving $42,000. Income tax might take another $6,000 leaving $36,000. With a family of four, this person might pay as much as $1,000 per month or $12,000 per year in insurance premiums which would be 33% of after tax income. In truth, I haven't checked the current FICA rates or insurance rates but I think I'm in the ball park. Now suppose this person makes only $20.00 per hour....
OK, now suppose that he spends the money for insurance. One of his kids has an accident and they go to an emergency care center. Do you take our insurance, they ask? Yes we do, is the answer after looking it up. So treatment is performed. Three weeks later they get a separate bill from the Doctor at the clinic for his service. It turns out that the doc is not in the insurance company's network, and he isn't obliged to accept the out-of-network payment the insurance company allows. (This happened to Joanne, and she has great insurance through the State Teacher's Retirement System.)
The Canadian system is not the panacea that M Moore would have us believe. However, my experience with our system has demonstrated that it has it's own problems.
Here's my solution
1. Require everyone to carry a basic health package and offset the cost for the low and middle income folks with tax credit. These packages should cover preventative care.
2. Require every healthcare provider that practices in the building represented by an admitting desk to accept the same insurance coverages that the facility accepts. If the provider isn't "in-network" he would be required to accept whatever out-of-network payment the insurance company allows. Let's face it, when you go to Home Depot, you don't have to negotiate separately with Ryobi for their power tools.
Ahh, but that's too simple.
Original posted in 2004 then corrupted by spam
I sent the John Kerry email about Rove's speach.
The problem is that Rove et al have convinced a large number of people that Iraq is the same as 9/11 so opposition to Bush's great adventure in Iraq equals being soft on terrorism.
I'd sure like to see a louder and more consistant drum beat to separate Iraq and 9/11. Although, I don't think we can now just abandon Iraq because in a short time we would have just created another Afganistan.
Stain on Congress
The following is the text of an email sent to David Shuster, MSNBC comentator, in response to his post on the MSNBC website Feb 4, 2005:
From the beginning of Bush's great adventure in Iraq, my wife and I agreed (we didn't agree on Afghanistan...I for, she against) that everyone in favor of the adventure including Bush, Rumsfield (shock and awe), certain media (especially the "fair and balanced" one), and members of congress treated the invasion like a video game, where the "good" guys confront the "bad" guys, and no one really gets hurt.
Your comments on members of congress' lack of courage and their diminishing the Iraqi's real courage is right on! But what can we expect, congress is so self involved that I guess it's not unexpected that they will continue to dribble all over themselves, staining their office in the process.
By the way, how about a constitutional amendment that would require that before a president could authorize, or a member of congress could vote for, an act of war that at least one immediate family member must be on active duty! Ha - I think we would see war when it was truly necessary.
About Healthcare
The Wall Street Journal, Monday Dec 27, 05, had a good article on what California has done to require hospitals to disclose their prices. Very revealing. The argument against universal healthcare is that "Market Forces" will produce better results. A major problem with this thesis is that healthcare providers, especially hospitals, don't/won't tell you before a procedure what your costs will be and what the likely outcomes are. It is the only industry that claims to be "Market driven" but doesn't tell you what you are getting and what the price is. Sounds more like a shell game to me. -- And this from a died in the wool free marketer. (Original on True Majority, Policy Issues, comment on Universal Healthcare post. Click Here )
Who is the "True Majority"
The True Majority is really made up of people on the center of American Politics. I submit that this group is generally compassionate in relation to the needs of the poor, etc. and tend to be very tolerant on social issues but also fiscally conservative. This majority would respond to a call for RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (i.e. spend no more than revenue), ETHICS OF TOLERANCE, and SHARED SACRIFICE (We can all participate in the fight against terrorism, not just the men and women giving their lives and limbs, by paying higher taxes, using less fuel, etc.). (Note: this was orginally posted on Dec 28, 04 on the True Majority Policy discussion board.)
Social Security needs reform
posted 17 December 2004 07:11 AM on the True Majority Board (alias JT)
To say that there is no problem with SS the way it currently is structured is to put your head in the sand. There is a problem but not one that most people on SS today have to worry about. Indeed, Bush's proposal won't affect this population, so let's not resort to mis-information about harming today's old people (I'm one of them). Whether you agree with him or not (and I suspect that most who participate on this board do not) Bush has done a service by bringing the SS problem into the light of public debate. In one sense, privatization of SS (and even Bush isn't talking about complete privatization) is just another tax cut (this time it would go primarily to the "middle class") with the proceeds going into an investment account. The real problem is the multi-trillion in additional debt that our children and grand children will have to repay, in addition to the multi-trillion of additional debt already planned. SS reform which will result in indefinite viability (40 years isn't enough for those just leaving school) can be done but the longer we delay, the greater the sacrifice the younger generations will have to make.
Dems better understand the mass audience
Most people like (and can understand) simple direct statements. The dems rose to power in the 1930's with simple messages like "The only thing you have to fear is fear itself" and later in the 60's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Then on the other side was Gingrich's "Contract with America." The Bushies are masters at framing issues into simple-to-understand sound bytes. e.g. "If you're not with us you're against us." Or, the Orwellian "Clear Skys," or "Healthy Forests." Darrell Waltrip (a well known NASCAR driver), in an interview before the 2004 election said something to the effect that he wasn't into issues, he backed the man who he felt he could look in the eye. A recent National Geographic Magazine snippet (the issue featuring the report "Was Darwin Wrong") reported that 47% of the US population believe that humans appeared on earth about 10,000 years ago pretty much looking like they do today. A commentator on CNN today (Dec 10, 04) remarked that people only want to listen to comentary that reinforces their own perceptions of reality.A large percentage of Americans (the majority?) really don't want (or don't have the intellect?) to learn about and develop reasoned opinions on issues.
The dems must first, figure out what they are. It it's all things for all people they might as well resign themselves to being a perpetual minority party. If they can indentify a clear focus for their philosophy and interpert it for the masses in a straight forward way, they have a chance. Pandering to an unlimited number of causes (OK liberal causes), creates a mish mash of messages that will result only in failure.
