POLITICO Breaking News
U S Army Lt.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate Democrats have reached a "broad agreement" on a health reform bill,
Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday night -- a plan that negotiators
have said would create a new national health-care plan with private
insurers, and a chance for older Americans to "buy in" to Medicare.
For more information...http://www.politico.com
Middle Class Warrior
This is a good compromise because it is the people in their 50s who
usually have insurance problems. If the government will let the
unemployed opt in to Medicare until they find a new job that would
be even better. The GOP will have to be very careful if they attack
Medicare.
Senator Byrd said years ago HillaryCare would have succeeded if the
administration had used this option instead of Managed Care.
Finally Keep it Simple Stupid approach. Everyone understands
Medicare.
Jerry Okamura
mind being more dependent on Government, and less dependent on yourself, you
should support the plan. If you do not mind that someone else will make the
decision whether you will live or die, you should support the plan. If you
don't want your freedoms taken away from you, you should oppose the plan.
If you don't want to be more dependent on someone else, you should oppose
the plan. If you are really interested in solving the cost problem with
healthcare, you should oppose the democrat plan, as well as what the
republicans are proposing as an alternate, because neither one is addressing
the core reason cost are rising. They are rising primarily due to medical
inflation.
"U S Army Lt." <u...@global.net> wrote in message
news:hfn1gr$2nl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
John Q Public
> If you do not value your freedom, you should support the plan. If you
> don't mind being more dependent on Government, and less dependent on
> yourself, you should support the plan. If you do not mind that someone
> else will make the decision whether you will live or die, you should
> support the plan. If you don't want your freedoms taken away from you,
> you should oppose the plan. If you don't want to be more dependent on
> someone else, you should oppose the plan. If you are really interested
> in solving the cost problem with healthcare, you should oppose the
> democrat plan, as well as what the republicans are proposing as an
> alternate, because neither one is addressing the core reason cost are
> rising. They are rising primarily due to medical inflation.
Mostly agree with ya but, gotta define medical inflation because it is
govt. regulation
and lack of competition driving prices up in my OP.
BTW government healthcare is not a form of competition because no-one
can compete
with the ones making the regulations!
Lack of competition is because of anti-trust exemptions (That were put
in place for the states
not the companies)
Jerry Okamura
"John Q Public" <my2c...@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009121321331997157-my2cents@mecom...
Why do I have to define medical inflation? The government keeps track of
that, ever since around the mid 1930's. The governemtn data is clear.
Medical inflation was at or below the Consumer Price index prior to 1950 and
since 1950, it has almost always been higher than the Consumer Price Index.
As for competiion, think about this. Before the advent of the third party
payment system, you paid for your own healthcare needs, just like you pay
for your own food needs, and just about everything else. When you make the
rationing decision, the data is clear, you have the most effective means
possible to control inflation. The reason is simple. The amount we spend
on healthcare is limited to the amount of money we have. But when the
government pays for our healthcare needs, they have a near limitless amount
of money to spend on healthcare. When that happens, you have lost the most
effective means to control prices.
Day Brown
> Why do I have to define medical inflation? The government keeps track
> of that, ever since around the mid 1930's. The governemtn data is
> clear. Medical inflation was at or below the Consumer Price index prior
> to 1950 and since 1950, it has almost always been higher than the
> Consumer Price Index.
disease, organ transplant, joint replacement, and at the same time, have
had new pathogens like HIV, and resistant strains of TB, gonorrhea, and
yeast infections.
If they only provided the technology available in 1960 the next time you
enter the hospital or need treatment, it'd be gonzo cheaper.
Now, I'm all for pulling the plug on terminal cases, and in my own case,
do not expect to be able to make that decision myself. Either whoever
does it will be an employee of the government, or they will be in the
pay of some capitalist enterprise. Your call. The latter will pull the
plug later to keep a vegetable technically alive while they profit from
the service... and drive healthcare costs up, while the former will do
so sooner to make more service available to those who would not be able
to return to the workforce and pay taxes otherwise.
Your call.
Jerry Okamura
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b2691d7$0$16188$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> Why do I have to define medical inflation? The government keeps track of
>> that, ever since around the mid 1930's. The governemtn data is clear.
>> Medical inflation was at or below the Consumer Price index prior to 1950
>> and since 1950, it has almost always been higher than the Consumer Price
>> Index.
> Yes, but since then, they've developed new techniques for cancer, heart
> disease, organ transplant, joint replacement, and at the same time, have
> had new pathogens like HIV, and resistant strains of TB, gonorrhea, and
> yeast infections.
yes we have, but what has that got to do with medical inflation? The facts
are clear. As long as medical inflation is higher than the overall
inflation rate prices will rise. As prices rise, and a third party is
paying for most of it, they have to come up with a way to pay for that
increase, or they have to resort to some sort of rationing.
>
> If they only provided the technology available in 1960 the next time you
> enter the hospital or need treatment, it'd be gonzo cheaper.
>
> Now, I'm all for pulling the plug on terminal cases, and in my own case,
> do not expect to be able to make that decision myself. Either whoever does
> it will be an employee of the government, or they will be in the pay of
> some capitalist enterprise. Your call. The latter will pull the plug later
> to keep a vegetable technically alive while they profit from the
> service... and drive healthcare costs up, while the former will do so
> sooner to make more service available to those who would not be able to
> return to the workforce and pay taxes otherwise.
>
> Your call.
My call is to be able to make that decision and not allow someone else to
make that decision for me.