![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
![]() |
![]()
No, the strategy now is to incorporate something akin to the Dutch system, which works pretty well.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Until we focus upon quality, coordination and medical cooperation, health care will not be improved. I am not upset about access to care and frankly don't know anybody other than Democratic pundits who are. It is NOT important to me that our country provide universal access to medical care, as I do not perceive access to be a fundamental human right. I simply reject that assumption. OTOH, I know I may have to be pragmatic in my battles, but this battle is not something positive IMHO. Mike's nailed the strategy. It's all part of a long range strategy to undermine private systems, as Mike noted: "the strategy is 1) increase access, 2) wait for costs to implode, and then 3) trot out single payer as the only possible solution." And humor me, what do you believe is the "Dutch System" and why do you believe it has worked on a small scale? The two cultures are not identical at all and trying to follow the Dutch will fail miserably.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 12-10-2009 at 06:01 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
![]() |
![]()
Care for the indigent/uninsured won't change all that much in Texas given that the bill doesn't address illegal immigrants.
Dems know they can't take care of that on the first pass-through. Will wait til later. When it becomes clear that some of these taxpayer-based charitable hospitals are essentially only in place to serve illegal immigrants (which is not that far-fetched if everyone else has insurance of one kind or another), I wonder what the public reaction is going to be. We may very well find out. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]()
It's that Cali's cronies believe government can create healthy markets with adequate service.
Here's a quote from one of the articles: Quote:
And great, just what we need, another government concocted marketplace. As Mike aptly analyzed, the structure of the Exchange is artificial so it will skew normal economics, destroy the insurance companies "compelling" Congress to pay for it all. The plan is brilliantly cloaked but devious and disastrous nonetheless.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]() Quote:
And they were polemical. One of them assumed a 4 to 5% administrative "cost" savings. I find the thought of government saving costs administratively laughable. I know a real life example which just completely undermines the concept, and know of no contrary anecdote. We have a small county hospital in our state which lost 500,000 per month and was staffed with forty administrators. A private entity came in, fired the lot, relying instead upon 2 administrators, and turned it around, not that it generated huge profits, but that it survived. The assumptions of the models are ludicrous.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Yeah, lots of confidence in this. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
![]() |
![]() Quote:
If in truth 65% of people don't understand the public option (which I doubt), then the Democrats can count their blessings. The more people learn about it, the more they hate it.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
![]() |
![]() Quote:
USA 20% Canada 6% France 4% Japan 2.5% Taiwan 1.5% Which one of these have government-run systems? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2101778_2.html
__________________
太初有道 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
![]() |
![]()
There are a lot of inefficiencies in the US system.
Like difficulties in sharing medical information between doctors/hospitals/systems. USA also deals with a difficult medico-legal environment. Lawyers are skimming off the top. Americans also have access to a much wider array of services. We have people complaining that adminstrative costs are too high, and everything is too helter-skelter with so many insurers--but then we get the other complaint that the industry is too consolidated with only one, two, or three insurers in some states!!! Here's the deal: if you look at those other countries, what do they have that we don't? Rationing. I think if you have uniform rules on the rationing of medical care (i.e. someone chooses the winners and losers), then things become easier administratively. Is America ready for Washington-based medical rationing? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|