RINOs and Elephants, oh my

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

I think that the opposition to Obamacare comes from the fact that it has not been fully enacted. Medicare was opposed but has been in place for decades and so can not politically be terminated. I do not know the history of the VA but I am aware of the level of care. Medicare has provided medical insurance to the elderly but it has also caused significant problems in medical finances. Government control does not equal good care. At the same time, I agree with the insurance crisis that I have to deal. That said, it affects the elderly as well despite the medicare program. If a medicare patient needs a nursing home, medicaid requires nearly bankrupting the spouse first. I do not have simple solutions but Obamacare is not the solution.

[Beavah]

Yah, vol, I agree with yeh as usual. The bill is a mess, and they used a bunch of accounting gimmickry to hide the real costs.

 

Thing is, a lot of da problems with the system are caused by Medicare, eh? So yeh have to address that as well in some way.

 

I certainly don't have any great solutions either, and you're much closer to the system than I am. But I don't think ignorin' the thing was the way to go, or adding to Medicare with an Rx drug benefit. Talk about a boondoggle. But yeh don't see a sudden Tea-Party induced urge to repeal that, eh? It was recent enough to be a good target for "smaller government."

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

I would certainly think that a repeal of the drug benefit is in order. The government always wants control. We should encourage people to have private insurance as long as possible instead of forcing them to sign up for medicare at a certain age. The medicare benefits should be somehow needs tested so that the wealthy would receive less. Medicare and all insurance should return to an indemnity system to bring the market back into the system. Also, the patient would be responsible for the bill and the third party payor would pay the patient. These provisions would allow for competition for elective medical exams, tests, and procedures. Get the government out of the doctor's offices, clinics, labs, and hospitals. Curtail the unreasonable rules from JCAHO and decrease its' power. Some tort reform to include taking some or all of a professional's (not just physician's) personal assets off the table for lawsuits. The idea would be to encourage making decisions upon reasonable certainty rather than above any doubt. This would decrease needless testing and procedures which carry risks. Through the 1950's, medicine was paternalistic. Patients were empowered which was needed and appropriate but it has gone too far. We often continue treatments that we know are futile in the long run but must do so because the patient and/or family insists. Physicians should be able to document why further aggressive treatment is futile and be able to cease it. That is theoretically available but in practice is time consuming (and we are over worked and so cannot spend that time) and has the threat of a lawsuit. Sometimes I feel that what we do to keep some people alive is cruel.

 

Anyway, those are some ideas that I believe would improve healthcare and ultimately make it more affordable to the government and individual.

[packsaddle]

Look, the means test is an idea for wimps who are afraid to take the bold steps that are really needed. The means test is something I reluctantly go along with as a last resort. But I recognize that acceptance of these welfare programs in any form essentially is endorsing those welfare programs. And as long as they exist, there will be a tendency for them to grow and once again become engorged with taxpayer dollars. If we want to really solve this problem we must terminate Medicare, Social Security, and similar welfare programs. Let the thousand points of light and the private sector provide for the needy. The rest of us can protect our futures with private investments.

[JoeBob]

Packsaddle is right. Social Security was the camel's nose under the tent.

 

That welfare principle has grown to the point that the federal government (taxpayers) somehow became the insurer of last resort for the 911 survivors. Where's that in the constitution?

 

Common good? More like common downfall.

[GernBlansten]

Joebob,

You have anyone in your family getting SS? What will happen to them if it went away?

[packsaddle]

They'll either live off their own resources, go back to work, or JoeBob will help support them - or they'll get handouts from local food pantries and churches, maybe move in with JoeBob or go homeless. But they won't be mooching off my tax dollars or, in reality, taxes yet to be paid by my children and their children's children.

[GernBlansten]

Yeah, and they won't be spending any money because they won't have any. So all the services and goods they consume will be left on the self and idle. Of course grandma can move into the basement and eat what little JoeBob has left after he feeds his family. Don't think the cat will be too happy having to scrap by what grandma leaves in her bowl. Of course that assumes JoeBob remains employed and healthy. If he has an accident or heaven forbid a stroke, could put the entire family out on the street. Hope he lives in a warm climate because they won't have two nickles to rub together for gas money to get to one. Good news is without healthcare, the end will be near and the suffering short.

[packsaddle]

For all I care they can eat the cat. Or grandma can die (face it, she's probably next on the list anyway). The purpose of SS is not for moochers to be able to keep the economy churning along. For your economic argument to work best, it would be better for the taxpayers to spend their own money their own way than have the federal government reallocate wealth to the moochers. Yes, they'll fall on hard times. Tough luck. That is the outcome we must choose if we are to get the budget under control without increased taxes and without making our children hostage to our wasteful ways. But take heart, it seems fairly clear to me that a lot of people are going to mouth the words and then either do nothing about SS or else they'll change their minds. We just don't have the backbone to face what needs to be done.

[GernBlansten]

Pack,

As a treehugging enviroamerican, I worry that the sudden spike in dead grandmas will put strain on the limited inventory of available cemetery plots. Perhaps we could bulldoze the retirement villages and nursing homes for additional space. We are going to have to anyways. They will be vacant and falling into disrepair. A clear haven for drug addicts and immoral behavior.

[packsaddle]

Simple. Soylent Green instead of food stamps.

 

Edit: From what I've seen, retirement villages are pretty much dens of iniquity already.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[WAKWIB]

The purpose of SS is not for moochers to be able to keep the economy churning along.

 

Who are the moochers? Is it the people who pay into the fund out of every paycheck they get?

 

Or maybe it's the university professor who gets a government grant to study the life and times of a lesbian lizard?

[GernBlansten]

The moochers are the people who suckle on the teet of the government.

Grandmas, cripples, defense contractors, street sweepers, dog catchers, medicare nurses, teachers, politicians, police officers, soldiers, prisoners, social workers, IRS agents, TSA gropers, oh the list is endless.

They are the moochers.

[WAKWIB]

So...we get rid of Social Security tomorrow. Yeah, maybe it was a dumb idea from the get-go.

But, where does the money I've put into it for the last 35 years go. Up in smoke?

I might be inclined to consider that theft. Sure I willingly gave it to Uncle Sam. But it was given under something of a contractual basis.

So maybe if Social Security just "went away" and people lost thousands of dollars, instead of waving tea-bags folks might be waving guns.

Honestly we haven't had a honest to goodness revolution in North America in a while. My son once piped up that the reason socialist ideals work well in France is because the government actually listens to the people. And the reason they listen so well is that because they remember the Revolution. Something about all those guillotines and stuff left an impression.

[scoutingagain]

", where does the money I've put into it for the last 35 years go. Up in smoke? "

 

The government spends it as it comes in. They spend it on wars, social security, medicare and keep all those government employees Gern noted employed. The social security trust fund is invested in government bonds that the government promises to pay back with future revenues.(TAXES) So cut taxes, cut future revenue and there is no money to pay you back all those soc. security taxes you put in the last 35 years.

 

SA