|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 31, 2009 17:59:51 GMT -7
Ya said you wanted questions, Snil. You know what they say, be careful what you wish for... Okay, let me get my two lawyers to look over your answers and I'll get back to you. Get a forensic accountant they are better suited to this discussion
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 31, 2009 17:59:59 GMT -7
Okay, one thing just right off the bat, what is the difference between a government take-over and expanding govt owned infrastructure? In both cases, you're advocating bigger more powerful govt, right?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 31, 2009 18:52:07 GMT -7
Okay, one thing just right off the bat, what is the difference between a government take-over and expanding govt owned infrastructure? In both cases, you're advocating bigger more powerful govt, right? Take over implies the government assumes private property for its own use - ie GM and Chrysler and some of the banks. What was private is now government owned. In the examples given they used the smokescreen of having (or buying) an "equity" stake purchased through a bailout - but their management control is like no other equity investment ever scene in the US. In my proposal, the property the government will control is property it already owns - ie a county hospital, schools etc. There was no pre-existing private owner, the assets already belong to the citizens and are managed by an elected government. If it doesn't offend you they are community property already. My proposal is basically two fold 1) make fuller use of existing community property, and 2) finance it through a mechanism other than enforced taxes - think of it as a larger user fee that is voluntary. Just like $10.00 to go to the zoo, pay $6,000 per year (as an example) and in return you have full access to the services needed and available at the health care facilities. It is your option to pay or not. Those under whatever the income level is now will have the same access, just as non-property owners don't pay now and those with low income do not pay now. I am not advocating a bigger more powerful government, I am advocating better health care at a more affordable rate, and a fee structure answerable to market demands - you have the choice of signing up for this service or staying with what you have now. Realistically the only change is that now for profits will have to compete for paying customers, not merely being able to dump those who cannot pay. All the advantages for profit insurers have in terms of a large pool of patients will exist for the first time for community held health providers
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 31, 2009 22:02:20 GMT -7
Sorry Snil, I don't have two days and two lawyers to make sense out of that. I have to ask this, when you say this is "being touted" as end of life counseling are you suggesting that that description is some how inaccurate? 'Cause I gotta tell you, that's sure what it looked like to me. "19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the 20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail 21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene 22 fits for such services and supports that are available 23 under this title." And you're saying this type of "counseling" is already required under state law? Now, back to my other questions... Under some state laws yes. If you struggle through the whole section you will see that basically it is codifying what happens in the best of cases now both among family members and with the engagement of medical professional. It is a discussion of estate planning, living wills, medical directives etc. You can spin it anyway anyone wants but if you look at it with an open mind you will see while there are some obectionabe aspects the general direction is OK. I think this is an attempt to codify a whole bunch of individual issues and to provide some legal civer for medical professionals as to what they can discuss and not risk being sued for providing all options Oh, I just have to point out here that I didn't spin anything in anyway. I just copy-pasted the actual language of the bill. To say that parts of it are "objectionable", I think is an understatement and a bit like asking our first lady of some ages ago"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" BTW Snil, I know what I don't like about this "reform" bill, what don't you like about it?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 31, 2009 22:11:08 GMT -7
Okay, one thing just right off the bat, what is the difference between a government take-over and expanding govt owned infrastructure? In both cases, you're advocating bigger more powerful govt, right? Take over implies the government assumes private property for its own use - ie GM and Chrysler and some of the banks. What was private is now government owned. In the examples given they used the smokescreen of having (or buying) an "equity" stake purchased through a bailout - but their management control is like no other equity investment ever scene in the US. In my proposal, the property the government will control is property it already owns - ie a county hospital, schools etc. There was no pre-existing private owner, the assets already belong to the citizens and are managed by an elected government. If it doesn't offend you they are community property already. My proposal is basically two fold 1) make fuller use of existing community property, and 2) finance it through a mechanism other than enforced taxes - think of it as a larger user fee that is voluntary. Just like $10.00 to go to the zoo, pay $6,000 per year (as an example) and in return you have full access to the services needed and available at the health care facilities. It is your option to pay or not. Those under whatever the income level is now will have the same access, just as non-property owners don't pay now and those with low income do not pay now. I am not advocating a bigger more powerful government, I am advocating better health care at a more affordable rate, and a fee structure answerable to market demands - you have the choice of signing up for this service or staying with what you have now. Realistically the only change is that now for profits will have to compete for paying customers, not merely being able to dump those who cannot pay. All the advantages for profit insurers have in terms of a large pool of patients will exist for the first time for community held health providers Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You're saying one could opt out of this community structure and continue with privately held health insurance if they wanted to?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Aug 1, 2009 5:45:35 GMT -7
Under some state laws yes. If you struggle through the whole section you will see that basically it is codifying what happens in the best of cases now both among family members and with the engagement of medical professional. It is a discussion of estate planning, living wills, medical directives etc. You can spin it anyway anyone wants but if you look at it with an open mind you will see while there are some obectionabe aspects the general direction is OK. I think this is an attempt to codify a whole bunch of individual issues and to provide some legal civer for medical professionals as to what they can discuss and not risk being sued for providing all options Oh, I just have to point out here that I didn't spin anything in anyway. I just copy-pasted the actual language of the bill. To say that parts of it are "objectionable", I think is an understatement and a bit like asking our first lady of some ages ago"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" BTW Snil, I know what I don't like about this "reform" bill, what don't you like about it? Sorry I was using the generic "you" meaning anyone. The main things I do not like about it are: 1) it basically reproduces the same insurance model currently in place that will lead to the same result and un maintainable financing method. Lower reimbursement rates, services limitied etc., but in this case the Gov. will have a power insurance companies do not - they can confiscate my pay (taxes) to keep it funded. 2) I think it is over reaching of Fed. Power - this is a state issue. 3) they are attempting to rebuild from scratch - not use anything that already exists in terms of infrastructure, so that is why the $1 trillion just to launch it.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Aug 1, 2009 5:48:21 GMT -7
Exactly - no one would be forced to be in this program. Instead of building/expanding massively and then seeking the funding, the system would grow with membership (voluntary) growth. I would like to see this state wide and all facilities would be available to all. So if you are traveling to Austin say and get sick, you can go to a public medical facility and you are covered, It is a whole netwrok just like now.
If you want to keep your private insurance do so. I would even allow you to have both, just designate the primary insurer
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Aug 31, 2009 16:22:13 GMT -7
newspapertree.com/opinion/4198-reyes-400-mil-in-property-taxes-since-1998-to-cover-uninsured-health-care-in-ep"EL PASO, TEXAS – More than $400,000,000 in local property tax dollars have been spent on health care in the past 10 years to cover those who could not afford to pay for treatment and services at University Medical Center. Congressman Silvestre Reyes today released the following statement on health insurance reform. Reyes will discuss health insurance reform legislation at several public forums throughout the city this week:" He could have read it here first
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 3, 2020 6:47:23 GMT -7
Given the current COVID 19 issues with availability of medical care I am feeling pretty psychic about now.
|
|