Obama mentioned McAllen and Mayo.
McAllen has one of the highest growth in hospital capacity, not surprising since that's where the money is.
Looks like we are going to end up with a two tier system where some hospitals service those with public plans and the privately insured increasingly go to "specialty hospitals".
Wait a minute, that's what we have now...so where's the real health care reform ?
The reform, as it has always been projected is just in the right to ACCESS [that ability to actually get insurance for many people]. Much of the rest has been smoke from the right wing blogsphere.
Let's say I'm a doctor and no longer have to file any claims with any health insurance companies. Good for me.
I now raise my rates to 10X so I can play lots and lots of golf - my workload is now 1/10 as before, with the same income. What is there in place to prevent this from happening?
The other MDs are the competition to prevent this.
__________________
Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.
Last edited by edfreeman; 06-13-2009 at 04:58 AM.
Reason: fixed the quote
My solution to the funding of health care reform would be to set a national standard retirement age, whatever Social Security is. Then we would phase-in starting tomorrow a new plan regarding all public employment retirement, delaying it until that age. Except for extreme disability or hardship, this would delay all military, city, county, state and federal retirement until, e.g. age 66. For any 18 year old this would postpone any pay-out for retirement until he was 66, or 48 years. Under current systems he might get retirement pay in twenty to thirty years in the public sector. So there would be quite a saving.
My solution to the funding of health care reform would be to set a national standard retirement age, whatever Social Security is. Then we would phase-in starting tomorrow a new plan regarding all public employment retirement, delaying it until that age. Except for extreme disability or hardship, this would delay all military, city, county, state and federal retirement until, e.g. age 66. For any 18 year old this would postpone any pay-out for retirement until he was 66, or 48 years. Under current systems he might get retirement pay in twenty to thirty years in the public sector. So there would be quite a saving.
What do you think?
What is the logic of tying in a retirement timeframe to funding a healthcare system?
Are you suggesting that it would pay for itself by the vast numbers of working employees paying into the system for 48 years? Considering what we are already seeing as far as a shrinking job demand base, that is mathematically counter-intuitive. It also discounts the housewife [although there are still guys around who continue to not see women as equal workers in the job market].
The reform, as it has always been projected is just in the right to ACCESS [that ability to actually get insurance for many people]. Much of the rest has been smoke from the right wing blogsphere.
Cost cutting is an ancillary target of Access.
Cost cutting looks like a primary target to me...
Quote:
For the health of the American people and the health of our economy, we must act now to bring down health care costs and reform the health care system. It is central to the long-term prosperity of the United States. That is why the President is committed to passing health care reform this year. Medicare Fact Sheet Final
If improving health care is really a priority, why should cost be an issue ?
Why restrict health care reform to be deficit neutral as promised below ? We are already spending beyond our means on innumerable porkulus projects. If anything, I would rather we fund health care reform as a top priority.
Quote:
Now, covering more Americans is obviously going to require some money up front. We'll save money when they stop going to the emergency room and getting regular checkups, but it's going to cost some money up front. Helping families lower their costs, there's going to be a cost to this. And it comes at a time when we don't have a lot of extra money to spend, let's be honest.
...
So that's why I've already promised that reform cannot add to our deficit over the next 10 years. The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting on Health Care in Green Bay, Wisconsin
What is the logic of tying in a retirement timeframe to funding a healthcare system?
Are you suggesting that it would pay for itself by the vast numbers of working employees paying into the system for 48 years? Considering what we are already seeing as far as a shrinking job demand base, that is mathematically counter-intuitive. It also discounts the housewife [although there are still guys around who continue to not see women as equal workers in the job market].
Funding doesn't have to carry a connection to its beneficiary; that's just salesmanship.
Housewives don't technically retire, so that is discounted for discussion. Folks who leave public service under my proposal can do whatever they want; they just can't get taxpayer funded retirement money until the official nationwide retirement age.
The advantage to the taxpayers is we get a longer period to grow the pot to pay for the pensions. Why should anyone who simply worked for a government be allowed to retire, in good health, on taxpayer dollars while he/she can still contribute to the economy?
Obama says we all must sacrifice; my proposal is in that spirit. Gov't employees should share in the task.
My solution to the funding of health care reform would be to set a national standard retirement age, whatever Social Security is. Then we would phase-in starting tomorrow a new plan regarding all public employment retirement, delaying it until that age. Except for extreme disability or hardship, this would delay all military, city, county, state and federal retirement until, e.g. age 66. For any 18 year old this would postpone any pay-out for retirement until he was 66, or 48 years. Under current systems he might get retirement pay in twenty to thirty years in the public sector. So there would be quite a saving.
What do you think?
Social security has a minimum age limit, so why not public employment retirement ?
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
