On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 19, 4:25 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 19, " wrote:

Well said and excellent points. I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare?

I'd say that it's people's view of healthcare. That and lawyers.
Both the ones chasing ambulances and the ones chasing campaign
contributions.

I'd like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

If Grove and Welch's investigation turned up a report that said that
insurance is a basic need for all people, and as such a nationwide
program was required (broken up into smaller administration groups/
regions/whatever), and that a national/state per capita tax was
required to pay for it, would you be okay with that?


Unlike many conservatives, I don't have a problem with the
govt requiring mandatory healthcare coverage for everyone.
I do have a problem with the way it's being done under
Obamacare.

Fair enough. How do you think the Supreme Court will divide on the
issue?

My reasoning goes like this. The only free market solution to
not having universal healthcare coverage and the burden
not being placed unfairly on taxpayers is to refuse to
treat people who can't pay.

That smacks of NIMBY and I've-Got-Mine-Tough-On-You. To make it fair
all the way around, I'd extend that to include refusing healthcare
coverage to people that can pay, but who are so old and/or ill that it
is simply a useless extension of life. Check out the statistics on
end of life surgery and procedures. The amount spent is absurd.
Nobody is supposed to live forever.

Unless you do that, then
plenty of people are gonna show up at the emergency
room for treatment and we all get stuck with the bill.
And we all know that we can't do that.

If it's an emergency, it's an emergency. I don't want to see medical
care devolve to that level. Obviously "preventative maintenance" is
beneficial whether it's in home repair or health. That should be the
focus. It's far cheaper in both cases.

The logical alternative is for everyone to be required to
have insurance. But I'd like to see it done in the private
sector. The govt could spec out a min coverage package.
Everyone would have to buy at least one of those.
And for those with low incomes, the govt would give
them a voucher, the amount depending on income,
that would be used to buy insurance in the private
market.

Certainly an alternative. I don't have a particular form in mind. I
just don't want to see an inferior product with overlap and waste.

Then you need to figure out how to increase
competition and why free market principles are not
working well in healthcare, etc.

Free market principles. How about baseball? That's an example of a
messed up 'free market'. The American sport, right? Been to a
baseball came lately? A family of four can't go to a game and get out
for less than $100 or $150. And why? Because the owners are busy
building new stadiums, putting corporate logos on them, building a lot
of boxes and corporations are paying any amount and writing it off.
It's a bunch of crap and the little guy - that includes your little
guys, assuming you have children or grandchildren - are the ones that
are getting the short end of the stick. I object to that. I object
to municipalities placing huge bond burdens on everyone's backs to do
it.

In a lot of the back and forth on a newsgroup there are often labels
being applied and people putting other people in categories. I'm
neither a liberal or a conservative, though I have sympathies with and
objections to both. I have no problem with executives getting
millions of dollars if they earn it. I do have an objection with
essentially unlimited 'business' write offs for corporations, and
particularly when those write offs are not taxed. That's simply a
crime in my opinion, regardless of whether it's currently allowed by
the tax code. I'm surprised that all shareholders don't object to
it. It's their money being spent.

But back to my question - if after their careful review Welch & Co
recommend a nationwide plan and a tax to cover it as the best option,
balancing costs and coverage, would you be in favor of it?

R