-
1
09/16/09 | Report as spam
Main crisis is government intrusion
The main crisis in health care in the USA is unconstitutional government intrusion,
the attendant loss of privacy and liberty.
Problem: Too much reliance on insurance instead of savings, which has deceived
people into trying to buy more health care than they can afford.
solutions: This is mostly a cultural problem. It can be addressed by a combination
of education, tax-sheltered savings, and encouragement of mutual aid societies by
elimination of government barriers to them.
Problem: Too many illegal aliens and too many legal immigrants over the last 120
years, accompanied by too much over-population and over-crowding and too little
assimilation.
solutions: Build and maintain fences along 5,100 miles of border with Canada and
Mexico. Put armed federal troops along the borders to patrol and maintain the
fences, close down tunnels, stop unauthorized fly-overs, capture illegal aliens,
capture or kill invaders, etc. End visa waiver programs. Conduct a proper
background investigation on every visa applicant and charge applicants and
sponsors for the reasonable costs (of course, charities are free to donate to visa
applicants and sponsors). Eliminate [bleep] gimmick, reduce family reunification
priority. Put a hard cap on every visa program (eliminate the many loop-holes and
exemptions). Require H-1B and L applicants to demonstrate an IQ of at least 160,
aggregate ACT score of 34+, aggregate SAT score 1560+ or "new" aggregate SAT
score 2100+, or aggregate GRE above 1615. Up the investment visa requirement
to at least $200K and 4 US citizens employed within 6 months.
Problem: The AMA has had too much of a lock on the profession and erected
artificial and excessive barriers to entry.
solutions: Simply take them out of the loop on decisions of med school capacities,
building and accreditation of new med schools, etc.
Problem: Failure to remove bad doctors in a timely manner.
solution: This is a bit trickier. We need to be able to tell an honest mistake from
incompetence or evil-doing. Reduce the AMA's influence. Educate the public more,
and hence juries.
Problem: Outrageous malpractice awards (from juries miffed at #5, but also due to
jury shopping and judicial corruption).
solution: Educate the public, and hence juries. The reduction of reliance on
government and insurance will improve the public's demand, supply, cost, price
savvy, and so will making the books of corporate hospitals more public.
Problem: High infant mortality (for a multitude of reasons from ignorance of certain
details of nutrition and child-care to drugs to casual/promiscuous sex to under-
valuing of babies due to over-population in part and the cultural support for/
acceptance of abortion).
solutions: Education. Improved economy. Less immigration.
Problem: The sizable socio-economic sump (and also drags down average
academic performance).
solutions: Education. Less immigration. Improved economy. This was actually
improving somewhat before Medicare and Medicaid hit.
Problem: Every regulatory agency becomes captive of those it was originally
intended to regulate, who turn it to their own purposes, including blocking new/
potential competitors.
solutions: Health care and insurance are not amongst the federal government's
enumerated delegated powers. Push this back down to the state level, for them to
defend against initiated force and fraud (fraudulent claims, and fraudulent insurance
i.e. failure to pay valid claims). Encourage interstate commerce in insurance of all
kinds by disallowing corporations from walling off each state's profits and losses
(which currently allows them to selectively open up the spigot from states where
there are profits and closing them to states in which that subsidiary has a
temporary loss). Open the insurance corporations' books to more public scrutiny
by requiring that their accounts for the last decade be posted on the web.
Problem: Violation of privacy by federal government and protection rackets.
solutions: Ban all federal government access to medical records other than
massive, statewide aggregate statistics and epidemics. Ban out-sourcing and off-
shoring of medical/health records. Restore the Hippocratic oath/affirmation.
Problem: Too much unconstitutional interference by the feral federal government.
solutions: Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, the Socialist Insecurity Abomination,
federal laws requiring treatment of every one who comes to a hospital funded by
unconstitutional federal loans, and eliminate the federal loans.
-
2
09/16/09 | Report as spam
Nigel
Health care is a personal issue, it's none of the government's business and it's not my employer's business.
The solution to the current crisis is to free the health care and insurance market from government control. The free market solves problems all the time, continually providing a wide range of ever-evolving products, of increasing value, at affordable prices for people of all levels of income. The government for the last 50 years has intervened in the market and dictated what can and can't be sold and at what prices.
To rescue our health care, get the government out of health care, respect the rights of businessmen and consumers to contract freely, so the market can operate.
For details see the resources below, some of the best articles written on the subject of health care.
How Freedom Protects Insurability
http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/freedom-to-contract-protects-insurability.asp
Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp
Moral Health Care vs. ?Universal Health Care?
http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp
-
3
09/16/09 | Report as spam
Corproate responsibility ...
... really isn't the issue. The issue is that, conceptually, insurance only works if the vast majority paying premiums do not NEED the services offered.
Left to their own devices, few young, healthy, people will spend their disposable income on health insurance. By providing health insurance to ALL employees, not just those who opt-in, employers maintain that balance which makes insurance work.
This isnt enough though. Insurance companies need to be regulated so they don't squander those invested premiums on risky ventures during bull markets because high risk ventures leave insurance companies with little choice but to raise premiums during bear markets.
I'd provide incentives for medical schools to turn out more "general practitioners" and fewer specialists so that people could actually GET IN to see a doctor for routine illnesses before they turn into ER visits.
I'd take it a step further and require all doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients and to agree to provide a certian amount of pro bono care. (Say, regular clinic service.)
[I'd make the same 'pro bono' requirement of lawyers.]
And I would require all hospitals to provide emergency care to any human being who needs it. Bill for services but forgive non-payment.
And, I would limit the liability of doctors accused of malpractice. (If they are corrupt, throw them in jail. If they are incompetitent, take away their license to practice. If they are sued, limit their liability to damages only. (After all, once a loved on is maimed or dead, money is little comfort - limit liability to real costs associated with mitigating the damages.)
I would also require all parents to immunize their children before they attend public school (this used to be universally the case but apparently not any more).
It's not that the "safety net" does not already exist - it is that it is full of holes and is fraught with abuse. This leads to needless costs.
-
4
09/16/09 | Report as spam
Corporations are waiting to see...
First off the individual is best at judging what is right for them. I have a brother who eschewed health insurance as a waste of money and got deathly ill (he did recover). Were you or I to fault for him not having insurance? No. Would he like free USG supplied insurance? Yes? Do you or I want to pay for it? No.
To the original issue/point of the article, corporations are waiting to see. If the USG provides health insurance it is one more thing to take out of the bottom line and equalize your costs with those of your competitors. If one company in an industry uses the USG health insurance and it's costs are lower, all the others will follow suit. It is all about the almighty dollar and not about the employees. When was the last time WalMart worried about their employees unless there was something in it for them?
-
5
09/16/09 | Report as spam
Reality Check!
This article is F.U.D.
-
6
09/16/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOO MUCH OF AMERICA?S GDP IS SPENT ON HEALTH CARE.
BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CREATED THE PROBLEM:
Decades ago the government passed ?pay or play? tax incentives that encouraged employers to provide employees with health insurance.
And America was hooked on health care the way junkies get hooked on smack. The dealer gave free samples until the client was hooked.
When I was young America was the world?s wealthiest nation. And employer provided health insurance paid 100% of medical costs. Because it was free it was abused. Mom took children to the emergency room for a rash and to the doctor for a small cut. Demand was artificially high.
Cost shifting provided for the uninsured. Patients with good insurance policies and wealthy patients with no insurance policies received inflated invoices to cover the costs of those who could not pay. Health care providers and hospitals robbed from the rich to provide health care for the poor.
It is instructive that during the time when America enjoyed great wealth the Federal Government expressed no concern for the plight of the uninsured!
But over time manufacturing jobs moved overseas and were replaced with lower paying service economy jobs. Consequently, employers offered health insurance with less coverage and higher deductibles and co-pays.
Were factory jobs lost because America could not compete with manufacturers in countries where government paid for health care? Regardless, American leaders would not raise tariffs to level the playing field and signed GATT and NAFTA into law!
And America?s leaders permitted millions of ?illegal? aliens to cross the border to do work American?s would not do. Our schools educated their children, our State governments gave them drivers licenses, our banks granted them mortgages and our hospitals provided them health care.
BOGUS SOLUTION
Now that America is the worlds biggest debtor nation the Federal Government has decided the plight of the uninsured is unconscionable and universal coverage is a moral imperative.
But this is not about the 46 million uninsured. It is about assuring health insurance companies? market share and health care professionals expected incomes and lifestyles.
The health system in America has been based on a larger and more affluent generation of young policy holders offsetting the health cost of middle aged and seniors. This formula is being upset by the WWII baby boomers generation approaching retirement and the global recession.
President Obama wants every American citizen to be required to buy a health insurance policy. He compares it to the requirement that motorists purchase auto insurance. But while driving is a privilege, life and the pursuit of happiness is a right!
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the Federal Governments authority to require the purchase of a health insurance policy as a condition of having been born?
Where is freedom when government has the power to tell you how to spend after tax dollars? What distinguishes disposable income from taxes?
As for the proposal that the IRS be charged with fining citizens who do not purchase a health insurance policy, since the federal government just prints more paper money to pay debt why is taxation or the IRS even necessary. Just shutdown the IRS and transfer its budget to indigent care!
FREE MARKET IS THE SOLUTION
Is providing health care an enumerated power or responsibility of the Federal Government?
The Federal Government lacks any authority to preach fiscal responsibility. It has exhibited none in my lifetime and has reduced the wealthiest nation on the planet to world?s biggest debtor nation.
But Ma and Pa citizen have had to balance a checkbook their entire lives. The solution is to return control of health care spending to them.
Pass a law making it illegal for an employer to offer health insurance as an employee benefit. End wage stagnation and give employees raises instead.
Doing away with group health insurance and forcing insurance providers to compete for individual business will permit cost conscious Ma and Pa to shop for the best deal, like they do auto insurance. Then the free market will bring costs under control!
-
7
09/16/09 | Report as spam
I laugh at everyone saying free market is the solution
when it hasn't so far fixed the problem of ~50 million people being
uninsured. It hasn't halted small business owners from saying that they
won't be able to continue to provide insurance because the cost is
rising too much. It hasn't fixed it, and just hoping it will start to? What
type of idiot does that? Hell, just reading this discussion had provided
me with an easy batch of ammo against your very discussions.
"He compares it to the requirement that motorists purchase auto
insurance. But while driving is a privilege, life and the pursuit of
happiness is a right!"
Since you agree that life is a right, not a privilege, I don't see any
reason to debate the government helping out with this. I mean, IT'S A
RIGHT, right?
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the Federal
Governments authority to require the purchase of a health insurance
policy as a condition of having been born?
Where is freedom when government has the power to tell you how to
spend after tax dollars? What distinguishes disposable income from
taxes?
Where in the constitution does it talk about the state of marriage, gay
or straight? Abortion? And that part about freedom is laughable, it really
is. Tax money is money that the government uses, as soon as you pay
it... it stops being your money. It's like if I buy a car. Do I have a right,
now, to tell GM how to run their business? NO!
The Federal Government lacks any authority to preach fiscal
responsibility. It has exhibited none in my lifetime and has reduced the
wealthiest nation on the planet to world?s biggest debtor nation.
This is partially to blame because of the shifting tax structure and the
change from an industrial to a post-industrial society. We removed
tariffs, we screwed up the tax rate to a less-than-progressive tax rate. I
have to laugh when people complain that Obama hates the rich
because the top bracket was paying ~90% in the 1950's.
Were factory jobs lost because America could not compete with
manufacturers in countries where government paid for health care?
Regardless, American leaders would not raise tariffs to level the playing
field and signed GATT and NAFTA into law!
You do realize that a lot of industry that is in Canada is there because
of the fact that it's inexpensive to run a single-payer system, right?
And, Professor, you're a quack. Take some meds, put the coat back
on.
-
8
09/16/09 | Report as spam
No. It's a social responsibility
"let Business sort it out?" Just like they sorted out the market crash of 2008? Yeah, corporations are real responsible .
One way or another all of us are going to wind up paying for others healthcare whether through higher taxes due to patients that wind up in emergency rooms that have no income or whether it is higher premiums due to "over-use" and bad investments by insurance companies.
The only difference is the pain of loss of income or physical pain by those that can't afford treatment and can't wait 6 months to have a tooth pulled or a tendon repaired.
My outlook is that anybody putting themselves at risk by not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing a helmet and pads while skateboarding or skating, not wearing protective attire and a helmet when riding a motorcycle....they will all cost society as a whole because of unnecessary treatment due to their irresponsible actions.
Just flatten the playing field by having a single payer insurer cover everybody, healthy, sick and in between as it is the only means to a just provision of medical resources.
-
9
09/16/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
I don't know why one might argue the Feds don't have jurisdiction in the provision of medical insurance. I'll say up front that I'm Canadian and I don't understand why one who lives in one state should have access to better health care than one who lives in another state. (Up here we talk about have and have-not provinces re a particular province's wealth compared to the average). For all the things that America does to promote freedom - physical, economic, social - around the world, why make a difference if you're from a rich state or poor state.
I understand, for the most part, the economic arguments for allowing the market to provide insurance services for individuals, and I understand that bigger companies may want to provide more medical benefits to attract higher quality talent to their firms. However, I would argue, and to paraphrase along the lines of Adam Smith, that public health is a common good, an externality, that should be provided by the state just like defence or monetary policy. How else can one encourage the growth of small business to become big business if they "lose" out on the best talent?
Yes, some people muck up and become dregs of society and use the system for rashes and cut fingers, but for the most part knowing that for $54/month I, as a single person, can go to the doctor, get a diagnosis, see a specialist, get treatment (I still have to pay for my meds, but if serious, at least I get into the hospital), and otherwise not lose my house, is a comforting notion.
thumbs up goff256 & dunn@
-
10
09/16/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Why do we fall for this scare every time it's proposed? If we really want health reform all that's needed is to change the provider of service for all public employees to the VA. Market reform will take care of the high cost of private medical services and insurance. The brightest and most politically connected among us will ensure that any quality of care issues will be corrected and the VA will become the best health care provider in the country. This social experiment will only affect the experimenters.
Maybe after a few years, we will all want to buy a $250/monthly family of 10 VA policy.
-
11
09/17/09 | Report as spam
The Debate
You have the beginning of a good debate here.
The choice is between believing health care is a choice and health care is a right.
Doctors made that choice long, long ago. Their ethical responsibility is to treat people, all people who come to them. The idea of health care as a right, thus, is centuries old.
Conservatives love to think that the "health care is a right" crowd is trying to overturn some long set precedent. And it's true the gap between what doctors can do on their own and what the economy may require is large, and has always been immense.
But "socialist" countries around the world bridge the gap. Some do it through a single-payer model. Others require the purchase of insurance through exchanges. And they wind up spending 50-67% of what we spend to cover 80% of our people, yet cover all of them.
Facts are stubborn things. But the real radicals here are those who insist "health care is a choice," because in the end their plan is to force doctors to deny care to people who need it, to use the instrument of government to reject a centuries'-old ethic, and force the profession to close its ears to pain.
-
12
09/17/09 | Report as spam
Who is responsible for Healthcare?
If you like government bureaucrats controlling every aspect of your life, by all means allow the government to control healthcare. But don't expect them to want to take care of you after you retire; no longer are you an asset contributing to the tax base that pays the bureaucrat, you are a liability that drains funds from which they draw their paychecks. It will then be in their vested interest to kill you off.
I prefer to stay in control of my destiny. ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY CAN BETTER DETERMINE HOW TO TAKE CARE OF ME THAN I CAN HAS COMMITTED SLANDER AGAINST ME AND WILL BE SUED FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. End of discussion.
-
13
09/17/09 | Report as spam
Larry... -_-
I don't think you kow what you're talking about. In fact, you're spouting off
talkpoints from the nice Fox News programs. The Government already
takes care of people after they retire. Social Security, Medicare, etc. And
if you think that the government bureaucracy would be between you and
your doctor... you have once again proven that you don't even BOTHER to
keep up with anything,
-
14
09/17/09 | Report as spam
Larry....Larry....Larry....
Unless you are an Licensed M.D, D.D.S, PT, etc. with a knowledge of all physiological disciplines and have a DEA license to administer your own diagnosis, tests, treatments, prescriptions and can simulaneously surgically operate on yourself while under amnesia then I have some bad news for you....
Some one other than you is going to make decisions about your health care.
As the comment directly after yours indicates I think you may either be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or worse yet FOX News, or Rush Limbaugh. In any case it/they made your decision so you are no longer in control.
One more healthy tip...chill out, your going to give yourself a stroke.
-
15
09/17/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Larry it couldn't be any worse than having a corporation that denies me coverage for a condition that my policy lists as covered. They deny it because treating my condition costs them more than letting me die. That is what is happening right now to regular American citizens. You can't switch carriers (ie let the free market decide) because then you have a "Pre-existing condition" that is automatically not covered at all when you switch.
Oh BTW we already have "Death Panels" they are currently being run by the Corporate Health care system.
Having a robust Public Option is a good first step.
BTW if Government health care is so bad, Ask your Republican Senator or Representative why they use the one that comes with their job. If public heathcare was so bad, then I guess that Medicare and the VA hospital network should be shut down and Corporate Death Panels should be put in their place.
-
16
09/18/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Thanks to Heather for promoting the discussion and let me chip in with a couple of points.
My blog post asked a slightly different question. I am a member of a community of Corporate Responsibility practitioners (also known as CSR and sustainability managers) working inside companies and in organizations such as SRIs, consultancies and NGOs. My post asked the question, and suggested an answer, on why our CR community in particular is not participating in the debate on healthcare.
Within this context I do take issue with your statement Heather ?While corporate sustainability strategy at large stands to have a very beneficial impact on a company?s cost structure, the same can?t currently be said about healthcare?. I think that companies with operations in multiple countries are very aware of the differential healthcare costs and services. I also hear repeated references to the proportion of personal and small business bankruptcies that are due to healthcare costs and large businesses with significant cost exposure too. This alone shouldn?t predispose business towards which is the right answer, but in my view it should put the topic on the radar screen for corporate responsibility practitioners.
Kevin Moss - www.csrperspective.com
-
17
09/18/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Dana, I believe your argument regarding doctor's ethical obligation to
provide health care makes health care a "right"is flawed . Does that mean
that if people stopped wanting to become doctors that we would have to
force some to do so? Just because a doctor may have an ethical
obligation to provide care doesn't mean you have a corresponding "right" to
it.
-
18
09/18/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Your readers are apparently clueless as to just what the real issues are and you should spell out the major issues facing us. I submit that the following will change forever how and to whom medical services are provided. 1) Within 20 years the expected lifespan will double and it has been said that within 50 years we will see a 10 fold increase. 2) DNA based individualized medical treatments. 3) In our Capitalistic World, Individual and Employer based HC Insurance will not cover the cost of treatments, they will be based upon your ability to pay (apx. 100K per treatment). An individuals Health Care is not a social right nor is it desirable from the view point of the insurers as they would prefer a short term terminal illness at minimal expense to the share holder. An individuals and /or Societies Health Care is a commodity with an explicit value assigned to it by the Health Care Industry and the Governments supporting that industry. Therefore, I suggest you consider the possibility that No One has the Individuals or Societies interest at heart and are more concerned about stock holder ratings than about Health and as to the not to distant probability that those that have the fiscal resources will be able to see a ten fold increase in lifespan compared to the minions dependant upon HC Insurance for their care ? Just imagine the new world order this will bring about?..
-
19
09/19/09 | Report as spam
NightLife
I have to ask you one simple question. Why should people's lives, and
their ability to live, be something that people make a profit from? ^_^;
-
20
09/19/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
>goff256
"I have to ask you one simple question. Why should people's lives, and
their ability to live, be something that people make a profit from"
So, what should Doctor's be allowed to earn? What a ridiculous
statement. Food is necessary to live. Electricity, transportation, and
dozens of other products and services are necessary to allow us to
live.People and corporations profit off of the production and distribution.
Medicine produces a profit for the developers. Without profit you will not
have these products.Unless we all become slaves of course. The real
world is not like "Star Trek" where everybody just works hard or risk
their lives just for the betterment of mankind.
-
21
09/19/09 | Report as spam
Tis is literally the only thing that Catholic church gets right
They run not-for-profit hospitals (Sisters of Charity or something like that?).
If you can't pay, guess what? YOU DON'T. And those people aren't living
on the street, either.
-
22
09/23/09 | Report as spam
Why are liberals such advocates for slavery?
It almost makes one long for the zany rhetoric of the '60s.
It's only because of custom established because of federal tampering
with the marketplace 60 years ago that so many now assume that it's
an employer or "corporate" responsibility to provide health care.
Relying upon an employer for your health care effectively makes you a
slave to the employer should you become chronically ill at some point
during your lifetime. Leaving a job you hate becomes impossible.
Millions of employees settle for wages that are lower than they
otherwise might be, simply because they have become slaves to their
"benefits" such as health insurance. Why does anyone think that is a
good idea? If people owned their health care independently, this would
not be a problem.
In its current incarnation, health care "reform" will only serve to make
things worse; eventually making us all dependent upon the government
for our health care. I know few people who sign praises of the 50% of
health care that the government already runs, such as the VA, which
just got caught exposing thousands of our veterans to AIDS simply
because they were either too cheap or too incompetent to clean their
equipment properly.
I've been purchasing my own insurance my entire adult life. Yes, it's
expensive. (But it's expensive for you too; the only difference is that I
actually realize what I am paying; most of you do now) But the biggest
difference between myself and those who select jobs based only upon
the offered health plan is that I'm not a slave to any employer. I can
come and go as I please.
-
23
09/29/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
The problem with healthcare is that it is a business instead of a human right, including the right to refuse healthcare.
Currently, there is a largescale program underway that has been ongoing behind the scenes since the 50's to microchip society. The antennas are larger about the size of a capsule and the brain implants take a few seconds near your amygdala.
The out of control corporate "health care" industry is now more profitable than the war industry, and more effective at controlling the populations. You will be chipped and injected with brain toxin mercury flu shots whether you like it or not.
Then, you have no more rights at all. You are now part of corporate social engineering, the new industry of mind and body controlled slaves, along with their falsified and subjective disorder title to justify it. You will obey or be tortured.
The future is in communications networks, advertising and psychiatry as long as you are white and male. Females, children, scientists and artists are the products and advertising will pay for the neuromarketing access. Codes anyone? Ask Tenet, Moon, any large communications company, advertising agency or hacker for those. Maybe you can get a bulk rate from AT&T through Wiley Rein.
We will soon be ruled by Chinese cyber warriors and we march to the abyss with a moonie smile on our faces. If you live in California, New York or Oklahoma, you have 2 weeks left of freedom before you are chipped and injected with mercury vaccines.
It might be time to show your loved ones you care and smell the roses.
The song is fading now
It is of 5 sounds
Freedom
The song is fading now
It is of 5 sounds
Lakota Song
-
24
10/28/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
There are many corporations that refuse to work employees at full time. This eliminates their requirement to provide health care. And there are those who have preexisting conditions that make acquiring health insurance prohibitive. What, we should let individuals who work two or more part time jobs and or those with pre existing conditions die because they cannot get insurance whether or not they would like to have insurance. And Professor8's take sounds a lot like soviet era lock downs in Eastern Europe.
-
25
10/30/09 | Report as spam
professor8 reminds me of the philosophy of Communist Russia and China
It's astonishing and frightening to hear someone so deeply
indoctrinated in the Party Line calling for so much education. I
guess the term "re-education" has been forgotten already. Does
anyone remember the Re-Education campaignsKhrushchev, and Moa?
That's what he's talking about. The same sort of re-education.
The same sort of re-education (rea: indoctrination) he has clearly
incorporated unto himself.
Now called "Conservative' or 'Right-wing', it's a rose by any other
name.
The simplest fact of all of them, and a trait shared by professor8's
diatribe, is the cost was best described in terms of the lives
spent.
At one point, he calls for (as did Stalin, Hitler, and Mao) for
removing the influence of professionals and the educated. Imagine if
medical decisions were made without the input from doctors? (One
ugly example in the US was when HMOs set up Health Care Auditors.
That didn't work out so well...)
Is healthcare a corporate responsibility? No. It is a personal
responsibility.
However, when corporate practices have forced the price of
healthcare out of the reach of millions - without corporate
coverage - the responsibility shifts.
The incorporation of medical care has forced prices higher and
quality lower. There has to be a public option or this trend will
only continue. Medical delivery systems in many other countries
illustrate this fact.
Does the AMA have too much a lock on the medical system? Yes.
But the answer is not to freeze out the best educated people in the
country. It is to limit, through the time honored methods of checks
and balances, the influence of the AMA.
Doctors are trapped by the corporate system. They either
incorporate, or work for a corporation. No sane doctor will practice
medicine in the US as a sole proprietor or individual. The person's
life earnings and property are too much at risk.
And here enters another corporate structure: malpractice insurance.
Corporations can afford the high premiums. Corporations have
numerous structures to raise funds, allay taxes, and diminish
responsibility. Individuals don't. The structure of the laws is
designed in to that goal.
One simple check and balance would be to make it possible for an
individual doctor to practice medicine responsibly, relying upon his
or her skills.
In this complex, information-driven world, that means keeping track
of performance and results. -- The sort of thing corporations abhor
vehemently.
There are many other possible avenues to open the door for medical
training and competency to be developed, and tracked, for the public
good. One of those options is -again- a public option.
We do not need to re-educate the public over and over. We simply
need to make the information available to all.
On this point, at least, profeesor8 and I seem to agree to a point.
professor8 even offers a partially thought out proposal:
Problem: Every regulatory agency becomes captive of those it was
originally intended to regulate, who turn it to their own purposes,
including blocking new potential competitors.
solutions:
Health care and insurance are not amongst the federal government's
enumerated delegated powers. Push this back down to the state level,
for them to defend against initiated force and fraud (fraudulent
claims, and fraudulent insurance i.e. failure to pay valid claims).
Encourage interstate commerce in insurance of all kinds by
disallowing corporations from walling off each state's profits and
losses (which currently allows them to selectively open up the
spigot from states where there are profits and closing them to
states in which that subsidiary has a temporary loss).
Open the insurance corporations' books to more public scrutiny by
requiring that their accounts for the last decade be posted on the
web.
What is not clear is why putting the regulatory control at the state
level will make any difference. This would seem to work to the
advantage of the corporate structures which span many states.This
fact is stated in professor8's comments. Insurance companies are
licensed by state, not federal, laws already.
What exactly does professor8 (in his well-learned rhetoric) think is
supposed to change?
(There is nothing like rhetoric. First state something, then assume
anything you say afterwards supports it. Any rant will do.)
It is only to the advantage of the corporate structure to prevent
government and public access to medical records. Most of the
attention here is to generate fear that individuals' records will
become public knowledge.
The threat that draws billions of dollars of opposition is that
corporate and professional records will be accessible to the
public.\
Where do you go to find out your doctor's professional history? Dun
and Bradstreet maybe??
No humane person would suggest eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security without offering some viable alternative. The
vehement rhetoric reminds one of Hitler's diatribes more than
anything else. Inhumanity is so often buried beneath inflammatory
words.
The richest country on Earth can afford to treat people who come to
the hospitals. Are Federal loans there to make it affordable for
corporations to keep the prices high.? Or to make treatment
available for people? Find the answer to those questions, and maybe
a viable alternative can be found.
Yes in the present circumstances, corporations should be responsible
for medical coverage. Why? Because the present structure of
corporation has reduced this valid business structure to one closely
resembling sociopathic - where everyone is to blame but the
corporations.
Amor
-
26
10/30/09 | Report as spam
RE: Is healthcare a corporate responsibility?
Ack!! I put a couple of bold tags in for a couple of sentences, and I
got nearly the whole thing in bold.
Can someone get in there and fix that??
Amor
