Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9454)	2/16/2012 6:14:29 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

I don't think the Republicans want to make this work. I think they either want it overturned or hope the Sup. Ct. will over turn it. I think the Democrats need to be thinking about a Plan B in case the Sup. Ct. does overturn it (a good chance of this happening IMHO). Although without the compulsory enrollment requirement, I don't know one can have a federally mandated "Universal" system. The answer may be thru the States and letting each state set a requirement to enroll. In which case we would have a patch work quilt of universal coverage--at least for a while. The Republicans need to do a better job of explaining how their non-compulsory plan would work other than "block grants to Medicaid" which, to my knowledge, leaves too many cracks for individuals making some money, but not covered at work to fall thru. Their plan needs to address how to make health care attach to individuals instead of to their employers so when one loses his job he doesn't automatically lose his coverage. Its a debate that needs to take place in the general election.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9454)	2/16/2012 6:24:42 PM
From: Little Joe	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Here is what I know: lEver since the governments, both State and local have become involved in health care the price began to soar. The more involved they get the more it costs. I remember as a young man without any health insurance I had to have a cyst removed from my chest. I went into the doc's office, he gave me a shot of Novocaine and he cut the cyst stiched it and bandaged it and the bill was $50.00. This was about 1963. What do you think it would cost today? On the other hand the medical expenses that are not required to be covered by the States and which are not generally covered by insurance have been going down. Lasix is a prime example. Another is cosmetic surgery in general. Before long we will likely see the cost of laser foot surgery for toe fungus start to go down. So I suspect strongly that the involvement of the government is playing a part in cost escalation. My solution is medicaid for the poor and more policy options for others. For example a deductable amount that the consumer pays first and the rest is covered by insurance, would allow people of more moderate incomes to be protected from bankruptcy. For those who don't buy the insurance a lien against their earnings levied as a tax with a high interest rate should encourage more responsibility. Now I suspect many will say I simply can't afford the coverage. I also suspect many of people will be like friends of mine who drive around in 50K SUV's which they replace every few years. Have all kinds of fancy electronic equipment, cant live without a massage every week, and take multiple vacations every year, but can't afford catastrophic medical coverage. Bull, they can afford they just prefer to spend money elsewhere. Now of course one problem with my idea is that the government simply does not allow purchase of such a policy as far as I know. I would like to see a system along the lines I propose. It will never happen because the supporters of government health care are not interested in common sense solutions, they are interested in exercising power over us. I suspect that my idea will lower costs and increase coverages. As for medicare, I think it is too far gone. lj