Hello:

Lemme start by saying the cotton gin became obsolete when we found a better way.. The health insurance industry is obsolete. Its purpose is to collect money, deny claims, and write checks.. But, if we covered EVERYTHING, there'd be NOTHING to deny, and Medicare already writes checks..

Here's how the math works.. It's simple, really. Let's start with whatever amount, as a nation, we spend on healthcare.. Now, if we SUBTRACT whatever amount the health insurance industry takes, and APPLY it to actual medicine, I suggest we can cover EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING and have money left over for an aircraft carrier or two.

Yes, I feel bad about those insurance workers.. I also felt bad about all those cotton gin workers.

excon

the money instead will transfer to an army of bureaucrats who's job it will be to collect money (taxes ) , deny claims (rationing with little or no appeal ... 'take the red pill' ) , and write checks to health providers . No savings and worse than what we have now . As the system goes deeper into the red ,the government will increase taxes to cover it and ration even more . Maybe it's your plan to nationalize pharmaceutical companies also ?

Hello tom:

Well, you can SAY it'll devolve into all those bad things.. But, it won't. At least it doesn't have to. Please.. Re-read what I wrote. Lemme repeat.. The ONLY job the government will have under my plan, is to WRITE checks.. NOTHING else.. They get a claim, they write a check.. Period! A couple hundred computer operators should be able to handle it.

Yes, there'll have to be some cops on the beat making sure nobody rips off the system.. But, their job will be LAW ENFORCEMENT, and NOT medical..

If you want the government OUT of your health care, THIS plan does that.. Here's how it works in the ground.. You feel ill. You go to your doctor. Your doctor treats you. He sends a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays it. Easy peasy. Truly, it's EASY PEASY... The government gets a bill, and they PAY IT. NOTHING MORE.

That's the plan I'm proposing.. It doesn't look anything like you said it looks..

Look.. If you wanna lament the total and absolute DESTRUCTION of the health insurance INDUSTRY under my plan, you'll have an argument. And, maybe my math is wrong.. But, my plan, WON'T allow for any of the stuff you say it will..

excon

Quote:

---

You feel ill. You go to your doctor. Your doctor treats you. He sends a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays it. Easy peasy. Truly, it's EASY PEASY... The government gets a bill, and they PAY IT. NOTHING MORE.

---

I'm on your team, excon, but what if the cost of medical services to the patient is $500 and the doctor sends a bill for $1000 to Medicare who pays the $1000. The doctor whispers this to his doctor friends who start thinking ahead to buying a new car or having a neighborhood cookout with Omaha steaks, etc.

Hello CB:

Well, as the BIG guy on the block, Medicare sets prices. I dunno how long a doctor would last if he wanted to charge more. Plus, if he billed for services he didn't deliver, that's a job for the cops..

excon

Geez WG, you think doctors would game the system? I though just us lazy bums did that! That's what Tom said!

In EX's plan is the restricting physicians fees and pharmaceutical prices . He's said in other posts that doctors would have to either accept the fee structure imposed on them by the government ,or find something else to do . The truth is that under the Medicare system already in place , physicians are doing everything they can to reduce their expenses while keeping the quality of their care high. No matter what they do, it does not change the fact that the fees Medicare pays physicians ;especially primary care physicians ;are not enough to cover overhead (rent, utilities, staff, benefits, malpractice, and technology). Medicare reimbursements have not kept pace with inflation, especially when it comes to the overhead costs of running a medical practice.

More and more physicians now outright refuse new Medicare patients . As of September , there are more than 22,000 licensed medical providers that will not take Medicare for payment. Medicare now does not cover wellness care . That means annual check ups are NOT covered . Will the new 'everyone must participate in Medicare 'now add the additional expense of cutting the check for annual checkups and various other childcare expense that Medicare doesn't have to deal with now ?

Medicare now has a number of audit departments . Will they be eliminated ?Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs),Recovery Auditors (RACs),Program Safeguard Contractors,Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs),Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Review ContractorOffice of Inspector General (OIG) .....If not then doctors will continue to be burdened with the additional over head of regulatory compliance . If the doctors can't afford the staffing ,then they end up spending more time being an office manager than a doctor.
It is not just a simple matter of cutting a check . Claims get reviewed now and will continue to get reviewed .

Even though Medicare today is funded throughout a person's working life ,it is on track to go insolvent in less than a decade . So now when even more and more boomers are becoming eligible for benefits ,and the population ages as we kill off our babies ;future contributors to SS and Medicare , the plan is to suddenly add 100 million + more eligible people with no additional long term funding ? Yeah that's a plan.

Hello excon:

But maybe, for some reason, my tonsillectomy turns out to be more complicated than your tonsillectomy so my surgeon's bill is $500 (the amount Medicare pays for a tonsillectomy) and your surgeon's bill is $750. Now what? Does Medicare stiff your surgeon $250?

Carol

Hello Carol:

If I was drawing up the payment schedule, I'd include a check mark for complicated procedures.. I'll assume that the payment schedule will be set up as fair as possible, and I'm sure there'll be room for modifications.. I dunno exactly HOW these minute details will be worked out.. I'll just assume they will be..

Look.. Nobody is saying that a major change such as the one I propose is gonna be easy.. But, we don't endeavor to do things because they're easy.. We do them because they're the right thing to do.

excon

Hello excon:

I wonder how the countries with free health care for all have figured this out. I think I'll call a reference librarian. :D

Carol

zero the successful ones like the Aussies have a 2 tier system where the regular schmo has to live with what the government gives them and the privileged get to buy into supplemental private insurance ...much like Medicare here .

btw remember when Obamacare was peddled and the Repubs said that it was designed to fail so that we would end up with single payer as the only alternative ......and they were accused of fear mongering ? Well now Obamacare is failing and the Dems plan B is ...you guessed it .... Medicare for all.
But they have gone far beyond that .
Under their new freebie plan there would be NO co pay . Even the most socialized system today has co pay . The plan Bolshevik Bernie is proposing would cost the federal government $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years. That's the price of 16 air craft carriers . And that assumes drastic cuts in reimbursements . More than half of the Dems running for the House support some version of this plan . Of course ,much like Obamacare they are outright lying about the details .... Remember 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor "? Good luck with that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

zero the successful ones like the Aussies have a 2 tier system where the regular schmo has to live with what the government gives them and the privileged get to buy into supplemental private insurance ...much like Medicare here .

---

Have to say Tom our scheme works pretty well, payment works electronically even for the private health insurance and all for a small impost on our income tax so if you don't pay income tax it is free unless you want a high priced doctor. Medicare (we call it Medicare too) can get you some wait times for elective surgery so private insurance gets you in the door right away but there are always those doctors who want to charge more. The Doctors have resigned themselves to the fee structure and still drive expensive cars

Quote:

---

The Doctors have resigned themselves to the fee structure and still drive expensive cars

---

I don't know what expenses your doctors have just the run their practice . Here people like to sue ;so their liability insurance alone to cover

frivolous litigation is a major expense .

Our doctors have to work their tails off just to be a primary care physician . To move up to specialized medicine is many years investing in their education . Maybe your medical schools are another freebie ,but here the doctors pay . They also have to do a number of years in internship to get their license to practice . If I chose to I could drive around in a fancy car too. It depends on what you are willing to pay . Having a so called fancy car doesn't mean squat. That is just a life style choice . The only limits to what a doctor earns should be what the market bears .

When there is competition like in some of the elective procedures then the doctors have to compete with other doctors .That keeps fees in check much more than artificial fee structures imposed by the government . That is true with examples like Lasix surgery ,cosmetic procedures, infertility treatments, etc. ;and in direct primary care clinics where patients are offered the choice of quality, affordable, convenient primary care in a monthly, quarterly, or annual care package. There is no secret to the price structure . Many of them post their prices on line so the patient can compare prices .

https://www.northwestradiology.com/pricing/

Actually you would be surprised at the cost difference when you ask a doctor or hospital what their cash price is compared to the insured price.

Many of the patients pool their resources in heath care sharing ministries like Medishare .In many cases they customize their coverage to fit their needs instead of these comprehensive cover everything mandated public /private big insurance scams most Americans are living under .Obamacare mandates Birth control.Alcohol counseling.Depression screening.Diet counseling.Tobacco use screening.Breastfeeding counseling. etc .Some people want those things, but mandating them for everyone drives up costs. In my perfect world most things doctors do would be price negotiated with the doctor without insurance intervention . Catastrophic insurance would be the only thing mandated and of course government programs would cover the health care of the truly needy.

As always Tom you have a way of complicating what is basically simple by introducing the profit motive. No one says doctors shouldn't be adequately compensated but the public are not sheep to be shorn, as to working their buts off I have never seen a doctor with his butt hanging out, have you? We are not as litigious as you as we are not into making the legal profession rich but no doubt there are those who use the system. We don't do medicine as a business but as a necessity and thus we try to keep the vested interest groups out of it. Not an easy road but our government uses its legislative power on occasion. Thus "universal" health care was introduced so long ago few care to remember the "calamity" that befell us in those days when the transaction gained an extra party but we learned that having paid for service we should use it and today about 70% of all consultations are paid by Medicare without supplementary fees

Quote:

---

The plan Bolshevik Bernie is proposing would cost the federal government $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years. That's the price of 16 air craft carriers

---

At 16 bil a pop, 32 tril would pay for nearly 2,000 aircraft carriers.

I would agree that we need to make some serious changes to medical care, but as Tom has said, if you think the feds can run a health care system efficiently, go take a look at the VA. The last thing anyone should want is for the feds to take over health care. At any rate, it still comes down to enforced charity, as in forcing one person to spend his/her money on another person.

Tom is a whatever the market will bear kind of guy. That whole profit motive thing is what usually screws things up because when they can't get that annual 2, 4, 5% growth rate capitalists heads explode. LOL, doctors rag on about their insurance rates being high but you think they care about yours? Wasn't that why we had to get Obama care n the first place because many could not afford even to se a doctor let alone buy health insurance. Still the costs are high and even Medicare here only covers 80% of costs, and you need more insurance to cover the rest. That's all good if you're healthy and can get by with a few visits a year and some cheap pills but if you have a CONDITION that requires a specialists and expensive medicine or treatments, you are going to pay.

Stay out of hospitals! LOL, those junk policies Obamacare ended and repoobs brought back are only for healthy people mostly single GUYS with no kids, and insurance in name only, and despite Tom's still opposition to Obamacare and repoobs relentless attacks even repoobs are growing to like it a lot.

Tom hates government! Capitalists hate it too! Sometimes I do three, but an aging consumer driven economy requires people before profits so screw those capitalists, and those aircraft carriers. Medicare for all, screw the insurance companies and their ever rising profits.

I do not "hate " government . It has a role in a free society . I love a Constitutional Republic and free market economics . Looking forward to the days they return .

Quote:

---

As always Tom you have a way of complicating what is basically simple by introducing the profit motive.

---

You call it 'profit motive' I call it the market deciding the value of the service .

Quote:

---

At 16 bil a pop, 32 tril would pay for nearly 2,000 aircraft carriers.

---

yeah I get my bils and trils confused sometimes . When you are talking trillions you are talking real money .

Quote:

---

I love a Constitutional Republic and free market economics.

---

Well stated.

I can get with a constitutional republic as long as we don't forget the governance of consensus, but an unbridled so called free market making the rules for profit doesn't fit my idea of FAIR. Now you may love things like they are, but get with the idea things could be better with a few tweaks and we could all benefit from greater circulation by taking the tourniquet off our necks. Think of all those healthy customers you can sell stuff to right here in America.

The old model of building a country off the backs of slave labor should be dead by now!

Hello again:

I love free market economics too.. But, I'm GLAD that when I call the fire department, they get in their trucks, instead of checking with accounting.. I LOVE getting on the freeway without going through a toll booth.. I LIKE that the military protects ME without looking to see if I paid my taxes..

There ARE some services that should NEVER become private, and the delivery of health care is one of those..

excon

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

---

It's a for profit international corporation Clete.

Ex the examples you cite are legitimate roles of government

freeway ....(either state ;local ;or covered under Federal constitutional government (Art 1 sec 8) ..... all legit powers Some states toll their sections ,others don't . I predict that with EZ Pass systems more states will opt to toll roads . NYC is thinking of using it for congestion tolling . You drive down I-95 in VA. and you can get in an express lane where pricing adjusts while you are on the road depending on traffic levels . The schmucks who don't use the express lanes often end up in horrific traffic jams . Florida tolls express lanes near Orlando also .

fire department ...local governments have to power to set them up as they see fit . Many have paid firefighters . Many use volunteers . Private firefighting is a rapidly growing industry because it costs local governments too much to own their own equipment and facilities and the tax revenues decline because of things like populations fleeing due to high taxes . Many localities are consolidating their departments with other nearby towns .

military ... a Federal government power covered under both the 1st and 2nd article.

Seriously Clete ;you don't know what a Republic is ? A democracy is rule by the majority . ie 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner . A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49

A republic is rule by the people through their representatives . Representatives are directly elected or in some cases appointed . The constitution protects individual rights even if the majority voted to take them away.

I forgot to add one important thing I love ;a federal system where no region because of a majority population can impose their will on regions less populated .

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

Quote:

---

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

---

More accurately, the basis for our republic. 10th Amendment (You know, one of those pesky amendments to the Constitution that liberals pay but little attention to) states as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I got ya' and its not surprising that gay rights/marriage, Medicaid expansion, and a living wage were started in the states. So I was paying attention. You conservatives can slow down cultural evolution but I doubt you can stop it.

... and the beat goes on!

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

Quote:

---

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

---

no tal .The issue of the Civil War was slavery

AND there is no such thing as states rights .people have rights ;states have powers ;and the powers of the Federal and State governments are very clearly defined in the Constitution. I defy you to find one clause or amendment that uses the word rights when it applies to states or the Federal government .
Why don't you just admit it ;Progressives don't like living under constitutional law .

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, arguments over states' rights arose in the context of Slavery."

...defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...ates%27+Rights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

---

You left out the PUBLIC in your school reference that also extends to federal and state GOVERNMENT buildings as well, since religious and PRIVATE schools can pray whenever they want as far as I know, but you can fact check me on those details. The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe. Can't tell them what to do can you. BUMMER!

States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years (As far back as allowing interracial marriages), and most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

Even some (MOST?) Christians resist the yoke of oppressive and discriminating religious rule. Maybe you should have patented marriage, which no doubt would and should have expired eons ago. So don't blame it on those liberal judges making new law, they just expanded, tweaked and improved the old ones.

Yo' boy Kavanaugh can change them all back, so GOOD LUCK! Go for it! You held your nose and got what you wanted so I suppose you should enjoy it!

It was never about states 'rights '....period . There were plenty of other crisises that came before the Civil War that were about states POWERS that did not erupt into Civil War. example the issue of nullification crisis of 1832. Slavery was the only irreconcilable issue and it came to a head after the idiots in SCOTUS reversed the Missouri Compromise with the Dred Scott decision.

Again I challenge anyone to find wording that States have rights . The 10th is very clear and it needed to be .

The

powers

not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

It wasn't just slave states but ALL the states wanted to preserve state powers . Period . Alexander Hamilton was the least southern like framer there was . He said :

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

Even without the 10th the limited nature of the Federal Government was defined in the Articles of the Constitution. Article 1 in particular is very specific about what powers Congress has. Nothing outside of the limited and well defined powers is constitutional .

The idea of limited government pervades the entire Constitution

.

Wikipedia:

"The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.^[1] It expresses the principle of federalism and STATES' RIGHTS, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The states ratified the Tenth Amendment, declining to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated RIGHTS. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication."

assume that powers not defined do not exist . The 9th covers the issue of unenumerated rights of the people .

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Quote:

---

The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women

---

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.

Quote:

---

since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe.

---

Otherwise known as birth control.

Quote:

---

States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years

---

No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.

Quote:

---

most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

---

The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.

Otherwise known as birth control.

---

Do you hear yourself, deprive the people who need guidance of that guidance. Obviously not all the advice they get is good advice however there is a difference between funding abortion and funding advice

Quote:

---

No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.



The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

---

We can all agree that equating the right of gay people to be equal under the law and the travesty of gay marriage are two different things

JL ask your wife about oby/gyn visits. It's more than Birth Control which is not 100% effective.

Quote:

---

Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.

---

Try 37 state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s..._United_States

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._state.svg.png


Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America by state/district/territory:

Majority support same-sex marriage — 80 to 89%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 70 to 79%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 60 to 69%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
Plurality support same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Plurality oppose same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Majority oppose same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
No recent polling data

Quote:

---

Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal to at least some degree in thirty-eight states, one territory (Guam) and the District of Columbia; of the states, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama had restrictions. Until United States v. Windsor, it was only legal in 12 states and Washington D.C.. Beginning in July 2013, over forty federal and state courts cited Windsor to strike down state bans on the licensing or recognition of same-sex marriage.

---

The ball was already rolling pretty good before the SCOTUS ruling by the second map in this article. The good news is if you are against it you don't have to do it! :D

Same with abortions.

Your map shows public opinion. Yes, we supporters of marriage have lost the public opinion battle due, I think, to a left wing media and entertainment business which endlessly puts out gay propaganda. Still, the great majority of those 37 states you mentioned had gay marriage forced upon them by an array of federal court decisions ruling their own laws to be unconstitutional. In most cases it was not legislative action.

I suppose when marriage is gone entirely, we will wake up one day and realize that God did, after all, know what He was talking about. Too late, in all likelihood, we will realize what we have thrown away. Yes, you are free to go your own way, and you are doing that, but not without consequences. Jesus endorsed marriage between one man and one woman, but you believe you know better. I guess we'll find out who's right.

"In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, requiring federal agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Citing that decision in part, dozens of federal district courts declared state marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, and the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage expanded rapidly. On Friday, the Supreme Court said that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.