Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

Conservative transgender

Started by LilyoftheValley, September 10, 2012, 06:57:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jamie D

Quote from: Stephe on November 07, 2012, 02:55:01 PM
So you are OK with.. Lets say you get cancer and between surgery and chemo it's gonna run $200,000. So only people who can afford this should get treatment and the rest just die? O.o

That is the whole idea behind insurance.  You pool a large group of people together and you share the risks.  Some will get cancer, most will not.  That's still the free market.
  •  

Ms. OBrien CVT

And what about the unemployed or under insured.  I am unemployed, and despite the fact I am still looking for work, if I get sick I have to go to the ER.

If there was a national healthcare system, such as in the UK or Canada, I could get preventative medical care rather than waiting to become very ill.

The United States is about the only major country in the world that has a private insurance system.

  
It does not take courage or bravery to change your gender.  It takes fear of living one more day in the wrong one.~me
  •  

Stephe

Quote from: Jamie D on November 07, 2012, 03:02:15 PM
That is the whole idea behind insurance.  You pool a large group of people together and you share the risks.  Some will get cancer, most will not.  That's still the free market.

That sounds great IF I could get insurance.. You know pre-existing conditions and all. I'm "high risk" and as a single insured, the rates are insanely high, more than I can afford. Obviously you have no problem either getting reasonable insurance or your work provides it? Glad it works -for you-.
  •  

MeghanAndrews

What a lot of people don't realize is the new Obama Health Plan is essentially Medi-caid in 2014, but for people who make less than 133% of fed. pov. level, which is almost $15K a year for a family of one. The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) runs up to $900 a month depending on who you choose as your insurer but the cheapest is like $250 - $300 a month or something like that.
  •  

twit

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on November 07, 2012, 10:49:04 PM
What a lot of people don't realize is the new Obama Health Plan is essentially Medi-caid in 2014, but for people who make less than 133% of fed. pov. level, which is almost $15K a year for a family of one. The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) runs up to $900 a month depending on who you choose as your insurer but the cheapest is like $250 - $300 a month or something like that.
Which makes it unaffordable for those like myself.
  •  

Tammy Hope

Quote from: Stephe on September 12, 2012, 02:35:52 PM
^ This. I am financially conservative but socially liberal. There doesn't seem to be anyone on that platform and many seem to just be SOOOO extreme either left or right.

there was a guy running who described himself exactly the same way, and he got my vocal enthusiastic support.

I am the 1%

The 1% that voted for Gary Johnson. And I'll spend the next 4 years trying to get people (most Americans, in my judgement) who also describe themselves as economically conservative and socially liberal to wake u, stop being manipulated by the two branches of the Borg, and actually vote for a man they agree with.

Disclaimer: due to serious injury, most of my posts are made via Dragon Dictation which sometimes butchers grammar and mis-hears my words. I'm also too lazy to closely proof-read which means some of my comments will seem strange.


http://eachvoicepub.com/PaintedPonies.php
  •  

Tammy Hope

Jumping in on the health care thing, since it's blatantly obvious that a total free market approach getting government spending completely out of the market is a non-starter politically for anyone, the question is how do we structure the government funding/involvement in a way which provides the broadest coverage while maximizing the positive influence of market forces.

In my view, the best solution is personal medical accounts. Essentially, a voucher like system in which the funding comes from the government, but the choices about how and when to use the funds are left in the hands of consumers who are incentive to manage the funds as they would their own pocketbook.

One way to do this might be to let saved funds roll over into a "Tier 2" account at some point which could be used for things not covered by the basic account such as plastic surgery (while still being available for crucial medical needs).

This would have to be supplemented by catastrophic care policies which could be subsidized for the lower income people on a means tested basis, but should be much more affordable for those who did by because the insurance companies would be avoiding the payouts for routine care.

The details would need to be hammered out but in all likelihood, between the downward pressure on the cost of services, and the vastly decreased administrative costs, the whole thing could likely be paid for with a similar amount of cash as will be required in any given year to fund medicare, medicaid, and VA medical services.
Disclaimer: due to serious injury, most of my posts are made via Dragon Dictation which sometimes butchers grammar and mis-hears my words. I'm also too lazy to closely proof-read which means some of my comments will seem strange.


http://eachvoicepub.com/PaintedPonies.php
  •  

Cindy

I keep getting lost in these arguments. The OS models work well. Everyone pays X% of their wage as health insurance. If you don't earn you don't pay. If you earn a lot you pay a lot. If you want private insurance AS WELL you pay for that as well.

If you are sick you go to hospital and get treated. It's already paid for.

Yes the poor don't pay but that is what a society if for, you look after each other.

Yes lots of people take out private insurance as well for extra benefits, but that is what they are, extra benefits.

I really don't see the problem?
  •  

justmeinoz

Our system isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well.
I can claim a substantial percentage of my GT bill on Medicare for instance, and as I am a student, get cheaper HRT.  Once I am earning a decent wage I will have to pay full price, but I will be able to afford it.  Can't see what the problem is really.

All part of being a genuine Conservative and a consequence of living in a decent Constitutional Monarchy I would say.   ;D Charles and Camilla visited today too.  ;)

Karen.
"Don't ask me, it was on fire when I lay down on it"
  •  

kelly_aus

As Cindy and Karen have said, the system here works, mostly. No, it doesn't cover everything - it doesn't cover SRS (yet). It does, however, make my therapy and gyno visits affordable - not free, but affordable.
  •  

peky

Quote from: Cindy James on November 08, 2012, 03:24:04 AM
I keep getting lost in these arguments. The OS models work well. Everyone pays X% of their wage as health insurance. If you don't earn you don't pay. If you earn a lot you pay a lot. If you want private insurance AS WELL you pay for that as well.

If you are sick you go to hospital and get treated. It's already paid for.

Yes the poor don't pay but that is what a society if for, you look after each other.

Yes lots of people take out private insurance as well for extra benefits, but that is what they are, extra benefits.

I really don't see the problem?

You do not see a problem, I do not see a problem, most of humanity does not see a problem, but the 'rubber barons' have a problem with it.
  •  

peky

   
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save INSERT YOUR CORPORATION HERE, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A

The problem with this philosophy is that while is good for the share holders in the short run, it is not in the long run. The shareholders do not live in a bubble, they are part of a community, their own welfare is depend in having a healthy community around them.

The problem with this philosophy is that while is good for the share holders in the short run, ti is devastating for the National security of a Nation.

  •  

dalebert

Quote from: peky on November 08, 2012, 07:41:05 AM
Greed

I don't think that's a fair characterization of people (at least not all of us) who don't have much faith in government to do things well. I do feel people act primarily in their self-interest whether they're running a business or they're running a government. That's not a good thing. It's just the reality I am stuck with.

I look at handing something off to the government as a monopoly and I don't like it anymore than I like giant corporate monopolies like Google or Facebook or banks, etc. When you have a monopoly, you're less accountable. People don't have choices and when you only have one choice, what can you do about it if you don't like that choice? What incentive does a monopoly have to do things better? To lower prices? To provide better services?

I love the idea of everyone not having to think about healthcare, but I just think it's not a rational expectation. I expect it to cost more over time and for the quality to go down drastically.

An analogy I like to use--I'm an ignostic (kind of like agnostic). A Christian might say that I obviously don't care about my mom who was sick in the hospital because I didn't pray for her. But I didn't pray because I don't believe prayer is effective. Meanwhile, just like the Christian, I love my mom dearly. We have the same goals but believe in different tactics for getting there.

By the same reasoning, I don't have faith in the government to run healthcare well. It's not that I don't want poor people to have healthcare. I do. It's certainly not that I think greed is a good thing. I just know that people running the government aren't exempt from it and yet we feel okay to hand them a monopoly over one of the most important things in our lives. People in business are no better, but they can't force us to pay for their services. We can (if the market is allowed to thrive) always go somewhere else, and that's forces them to be more accountable than the government has to be.

I know I can vote or write my congressman, but I just don't have any faith in that process either. My odds of impacting National offices is about on par with my odds of winning the lottery. Trying to change something I don't like about how the government is running healthcare is a joke compared to having the option to just change providers in a free market. It's a huge clunky system that's slow to respond to people's needs.

dalebert

Something I think is important to keep in mind if you're (justifiably) concerned about greedy businesses--mercantilism is rampant, especially in America. The businesses that you described as greedy (and they are) are in bed with government. They're lobbying money has so much more power than your vote. In fact, they picked our choices for president and that's a lot more powerful than you having a lottery ticket's chance of impacting which one of their choices won. I'm just using the presidency as an example, but it's true with politicians across the board.

We should all be concerned with getting their fingers out of the government. Obamacare feels more like corporate welfare than socialized medicine to me. As I said, I am still uninsured because it's still too expensive. I'm not quite poor enough to get free healthcare unless I start lying which I could get away with but I'm not okay with.

And requiring insurance companies to cover more and more and include pre-existing conditions is going to make insurance much more expensive across the board when it would be (and traditionally was) MUCH cheaper for people who are basically healthy and just want to be prepared for the unexpected.

SarahM777

An interesting article and concept from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

January 16, 2012

Thomas Willett, country doctor, is still tilting at medical windmills. Willett is now in the second year of an experiment to bring affordable healthcare to Green Lake, WI, by wringing out back-office costs and passing on the savings to patients.

"The concept is just so simple," Willett said this week during a follow-up visit from the Journal Sentinel. In November 2010, the newspaper wrote about Willett's attempt to take a "scalpel to insurance" as he set up the Access Affordable Healthcare clinic to provide "quality medical care for less."

In a pamphlet that contains a fee schedule for services, it says, "No bills, insurance forms or hassle. Simply pay at the time of service."

Willett's prices remain remarkably low, from $39 for an office visit up to $500 for a vasectomy. The avuncular, 69-year-old doctor has now fully transitioned from running his long-established family practice to operating the clinic.

What Willett figured is this: Overhead at his practice was eating up 62% of revenue, largely because of costs associated with insurance for things such as dictation, coding, electronic claims submission and reimbursement.

By charging patients up front, Willett surmised he could slash most of the back-office costs and lower prices by up to two-thirds. Willett said he has accomplished that first goal. But he has another goal: to show others they can make it financially under his system.

"I need to get to a certain patient load to prove to the doctors that their income level won't change," he said. "Most don't understand they work for the hospital or someone else. If I charge $125 (for a basic visit under insurance), I still only get $39."

To make it work financially, he said, a doctor would need to see up to 25 patients daily. Right now, in his clinic, Willett sees 10 to 12 patients daily.

Helping hand

Willett runs the clinic with the help of Holly Thorp, the longtime manager of his old family practice. Thorp is a dynamo who keeps the books, negotiates prices with labs and schedules patients. She also wrote up an advertisement that played on a local radio station to draw more people to the clinic.

"Watch us go," Thorp said. "I think the practice will go big guns." Added Willett: "We want to notify all the area businesses, all the human resource departments, let them know how much they can save."

Green Lake County recently contracted with Willett to provide service for its employees. Willett sees the patients and is reimbursed by the insurance provider, WCA Group Health Trust. Co-pays and deductibles are waived for the employees, and Willett bills the insurance company directly, eliminating much of the normal paperwork. Around 10 to 15 county workers have used Willett's services.

Willett is also making his case to politicians. This week, he met with U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) to detail the cost savings of the program. He also made a pitch for using Green Lake County to develop a pilot Medicaid program for the state.

Under Willett's program, those enrolled in BadgerCare would receive a debit card with a predetermined amount of money that could be used at Access Healthcare and with other participating physicians in the county. He estimates Green Lake County could save $550,000 on office visits alone because of the lower rates charged.

Such a program would need a waiver from the federal government. "Unfortunately, it's a slow process to get any kind of change," said state Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), who added he would like to see the pilot program in Green Lake County.

"I thought it was an interesting idea. One of the concerns, of course, is the record-keeping. A lot of money and time and manpower go with all the records that need to be kept. His system does not have the middleman or the record-keeping. The question is: Can the healthcare industry survive without all the documentation?"

Keeping them happy

Willett's patients appear to be quite satisfied to go to his clinic. Andrew Stobb, 19, who was delivered by Willett, stopped by for a quick physical in anticipation of signing up with the U.S. Army. Instead of fooling with co-pays, he simply paid $39. "The way he does his job is still the same," Stobb said. "As a taxpayer, I think they should just do it this way all the time."

Green Lake County Clerk Margaret Bostelmann's family was in Willett's practice for decades. They continue to see him at the clinic. "With Tom's thinking, it goes back to the way he started his business of being able to work with a patient and concentrate on a patient," she said.

Bostelmann said she would be delighted if Willett could put his BadgerCare idea into practice in the county. "We're small. We have 20,000 people. I guess if you would do a pilot program and the state could review the bills to see what is happening to these folks, you could see how it would work."

Meanwhile, Willett remains on the job, working hard, trying to heal patients and make the medical system work better for all. As he made his pitch to Petri, Willett paused, smiled and said, "It's a good time in my life. The good Lord has been good to me."
Answers are easy. It's asking the right questions which is hard.

Be positive in the fact that there is always one person in a worse situation then you.

The Fourth Doctor
  •  

Shana A

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".

I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>

Z

"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

peky

Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".

I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>

Z

This ^^^ is well know by the "free-market" "you are a socialist" types. They know and they do not give a ->-bleeped-<-; it is all about their 'bottom line." Their exit strategy is the usual: "that is what charities are for, to provide a safety net."
Well, let me remind you of the safety nets pre-Franklin Roosevelt  era;
you are rich, you get sick, you go to a hospital, pay for care, you get better, you live
you are poor, you get sick, you go to charity hospital, you pretend to pay for care, they pretend to care for you, you get worse, you died

Just the facts dear
  •  

peky

I guess with all the technological advancements quenched by dwindling resources, humanity is at a cross roads: either we choose to be Ferengi or we become the Federation
  •  

Jamie D

Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".

I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>

Z

As a physician and surgeon, I have been sounding the warning that Obamacare is nothing more than socialized medicine as seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The following is a review of an article of the truth about what we can expect with ObamaCare.

The incentives that are an essential part of recently passed healthcare reform have been tried many times before, always with the same result, warns economist Yuri Maltsev, Ph.D., in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and in a presentation to AAPS members in Omaha last month.

Before defecting to the West, Maltsev was a member of a senior Soviet economics team that worked on President Gorbachev's reform package under perestroika.

The Soviet system looked good on paper, employing plan indicators to indicate hospital performance, Maltsev observes....

"Age discrimination is very apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated medical systems," Maltsev writes. It has not yet taken hold in the U.S. because the elderly vote in large numbers. But Americans are insidiously being prepared for it by the architects of Obama's plan, he notes.

In Russia, the trend is toward privatization, while "Obama suggested a system that we can rightly define as communist or socialist," states Maltsev, quoting Oleg Kulikov, a member of the Russian Duma (parliament). Kulikov also remarked that "they [Americans] are assuming positions that we've abandoned...."

The Full op-ed by Dr. Ritze can be found here:

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265
  •  

Shana A

#99
Quote from: Peky on November 08, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
This ^^^ is well know by the "free-market" "you are a socialist" types. They know and they do not give a ->-bleeped-<-; it is all about their 'bottom line." Their exit strategy is the usual: "that is what charities are for, to provide a safety net."
Well, let me remind you of the safety nets pre-Franklin Roosevelt  era;
you are rich, you get sick, you go to a hospital, pay for care, you get better, you live
you are poor, you get sick, you go to charity hospital, you pretend to pay for care, they pretend to care for you, you get worse, you died

Just the facts dear

I fully realize they don't give a damn about anything but the bottom line. I'm quite tired of hearing continual misuse of terminology. Obama is no socialist. He is a centrist, pretty far from being liberal. In fact, many of his policies are Republican.

Regarding charities, I'm friends with ministers of various faiths. They've all told me that there isn't enough money in their coffers to help everyone, as much as they'd love to. I'm also friends with Canadians, even when they've had complaints, not a one has said they'd prefer our system to theirs. I'd be OK with my tax dollars actually helping people, funding education, health care (not insurance companies), instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.

Z
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •