22 July 2009

Good News in Health Care


Maria said...

That pig is immodest.

Peggy said...

The USCCB has spoken. They want EVERYBODY covered, including illegal aliens. They want life respect at all stages, no funding for abortion. They want clinics...bla, bla. While I know the abortion and euthanasia things are central to the Church, I hate the USCCB to endorse the concept of universal coverage by govt. Arggghh. Where do they think the money will come from? Obie and Dems plan to kill us off to save $. What's the USCCB's idea?


TLH said...

Well, they don't call it United States Conference of Communist Bishops for nothing...

Anonymous said...

Nationalized healthcare as proposed will ultimately lead to rationing and hurt the most vulnerable members of our society. It may sound great, but misplaced compassion really could lead to cured pigs. We would be better off if USCCB would spend its energy converting the medical community and the politicians.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that the posters on this site decry Obama's efforts at universal, excuse me, socialistic,nationalized health reform and criticize ANY idea to stabilize the healthcare system. I have yet to see any rational ideas/discussion from those same posters.

So, Peggy, TLH, LMG, timman, guyfawkes, et al:

How would YOU address the issue of universal healthcare for Americanss?


Latinmassgirl said...

The big secret is that it is projected the cost of Obamacare will be 25 TRILLION in ten years! Our great example is Medicare - it is in the red, and Social Security will be in a few years.

Our great, "wealthy" country will be broke, and then we will continue to have high unemployment, which will mean the illegal immigrants will be out of work as well. So, the "kind" free healthcare isn't so kind after all is it?

Anonymous said...


It isn't a big secret. Any health care plan will be expensive. And no one in the Administration said that health care would be 'free'. But I do know that this nation cannot continue letting the health care industry call the shots and setting policy by default. I honestly think there are other alternatives that could be discussed. But deciding OUR medical futures will take hard and dedicated discussion from ALL sides of the political spectrum - Conservative AND Liberal.

Meanwhile LMG, true to form, you criticize and make snarky commentary...

...but you don't pose any alternatives.

So let's hear it. What is YOUR solution?


Peggy said...

Okay DCG. I've read up on this and am an economist by training and practice. Caveat. This is a combox, so I'm going to deal in bullet points:
1. Reform Medicare/Caid. Root out fraud, waste. Perhaps raise income ceiling for eligibility to cover poor.
2. Deregulate insurance co's. May have to pre-empt states. Allow them to offer catastrophic only. Allow them to offer basic packages suitable to stages in life, married, single, child-bearing/rearing years. One wellness and 2 sick FP visits per year. Something more could be catastrophic or over-use of basic medicine.
3. The idea is to discourage over-use of unneeded medical visits/ prescription medications. Make people pay for it. The fact that people have to pay out of pocket would cause dr's to lower prices and make services affordable, cut out fat, limit paperwork on their end.
4. People could consider whether they want/need coverage for possibilities of pregnancy, drug/alcohol rehab, other mental illness. The point is to provide some variety in the market. It might be best to have those product lines vary along phase in life of the insured, his family.
5. We must deal with the pre-existing conditions restrictions. People must be allowed to buy coverage. Yet, they will cost the insurer very much. Can they pay an additional premium given the costs they'll place on the system? Can they be covered by medicaid eg for that difference?
6. Ultimately, I am interested in getting insurance divorced from employment, as the unions and many corporations are. It would be great to have insurance co's compete for the consumer directly. Could it lower or raise costs? I am not yet sure. That's something to consider.

How's that for some ideas? We don't need to put all Americans on socialized medicine to cover the poor, disabled, and elderly. It's unjust and too expensive.

Latinmassgirl said...


Your comment was not posted when I remarked about the blog.

Right now, 72% of Americans see our economy as the main problem in this country, and only a small percent, less than 21% think healthcare is the main problem. So, Obama and his fellow socialists can take a deep breath and stop trying to get government control over 6% of our private economy.

70% of the uninsured "Americans" are not Americans, but illegal immigrants, so the uninsured statistics are exaggerated. The unemployed American citizens can be given vouchers to purchase "catastrophic only" private insurance temporarily.

We do have high healthcare costs, with excessive, unnecessary tests which can be brought under control by two words the liberals hate - TORT REFORM. There need to be stricter guidelines on who can sue and a cap on how much, and then the doctors can charge less, and stop ordering unnecessary procedures to cover themselves from lawsuits. The result would be cheaper insurance for all.

Most doctors believe this would greatly decrease our heath care costs. But the Democrats have these lawyers in their back pockets, so there won't be any reform there.

National heath care is not the answer. We need only to look at the problems with other countries who have this flawed system. If you go to a US hospital, you might meet someone from Canada, or England who is paying for surgery out of their pocket because they can't get it at home.

The problem is, where will WE go to have the surgery or cancer treatment that will be refused in our own country to cut costs? THERE WON't BE ANY PLACE LEFT!

Peggy said...

P.S. I overlooked the vitally needed tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance and risks to doctors and hospitals, thereby lowering medical costs to us.

I don't know how congress does that, however, as we do have state courts under state constitutions that probably handle the bulk of this stuff. Why would a federal court do so? (maybe Timman you can help on this)

Further, as a general matter, there seem to be a variety of constitutional concerns with federalized insurance, such as the 10th Amendment, basic ideals such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If having a kegger party and smoking cigars and eating McDs and Pizza Hut is happiness, I don't want Obama to stop that for you or any one else.