[paraclete]

You see all I get is road blocks, do some thinking, you aren't trying hard enough

[talaniman]

You see all I get is road blocks, do some thinking, you aren't trying hard enough

Restrict what medical insurance can cover

That's been tried, but what would you suggest not covering?

Elaborate please. What restrictions do you Aussies have?

[paraclete]

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma, gap payments and is price regulated so they just can't jack up the premiums,

[jlisenbe]

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma, gap payments and is price regulated so they just can't jack up the premiums,

Are you talking about in the US or Australia?

[paraclete]

Are you talking about in the US or Australia?

I was responding to Tal, he asked what we do in Australia. I was suggesting that such reforms may slow down the rise in your health costs by making doctors more responsible for the costs they inflict on the public. We have a single payer system run by the government so health insurance is restricted to covering higher end medical costs and providing a way for quicker service for elective procedures. I don't doubt you could find more instances but my theory is that costs have risen to avoid liability and that the public is subsidising the insurance industry

[jlisenbe]

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma

Couldn't you basically accomplish the same thing by having a high deductible? In either case, the idea would be to make the consumer pay for the common medical expenses and reserve insurance for more serious and pricey issues, and the result would be to allow the consumer to see the prices being charged by health providers.

BTW, what do you do in Aussie with poor people who cannot pay even for an office visit to a GP? Also, how do you prevent people from doing an "end run" about having to pay for a GP visit by simply going to a specialist? I have a sore throat, so I go to an ENT.

[paraclete]

Couldn't you basically accomplish the same thing by having a high deductible? In either case, the idea would be to make the consumer pay for the common medical expenses and reserve insurance for more serious and pricey issues, and the result would be to allow the consumer to see the prices being charged by health providers.

BTW, what do you do in Aussie with poor people who cannot pay even for an office visit to a GP? Also, how do you prevent people from doing an "end run" about having to pay for a GP visit by simply going to a specialist? I have a sore throat, so I go to an ENT.

No one in this nation cannot afford to visit a GP, 80% of all services are bulkbilled by the medical provider, this includes GP, ER, pathology, radiology, even some specialists, what you have just said is a nonsense, propaganda. An attempt by conservative nitwits like yourself to introduce this concept of co-payment, it was politically untenable and abandoned

[excon]

Suppose the government decides that pickup trucks are too expensive. They can easily run above 50 thousand. So the feds say that no one can sell a truck for more than 20 thou.

Hello j:

If you don't get your $50K truck at a reduced rate, you still LIVE.. If you can't afford an MRI, you DIE..

To ME, you don't have a RIGHT to the truck, but you DO have a RIGHT to live.

excon

[jlisenbe]

what you have just said is a nonsense, propaganda. An attempt by conservative nitwits like yourself to introduce this concept of co-payment, it was politically untenable and abandoned

Honestly, you need to calm down. There are no nitwits on this board, but there is one person who just cannot maintain a civil attitude.

Your statement was that insurance could not pay for a GP visit, so it would seem the individual would pay for it. Now you add some information that, it would seem, the government pays for 80% of the service, which is about the same as an insurance company paying for it. That really changes things and makes it plain that the consumer does not pay for the service directly. They do, of course, pay for the service through taxes, which is to say they pay for it indirectly. So whether it is through a copay or through taxes, the consumer still pays. The primary difference is that in your system there are price controls on what a doctor or a drug company can charge for services or products.

Government debt in Australia is well over 800 billion and climbing steadily, so you are borrowing money to pay for your med care. I would be much more impressed if you were actually paying your bills. And yes, in the U.S. we are in much worse shape, which makes it all the more amazing that people are actually proposing increased government spending for health care.

If you don't get your $50 K truck at a reduced rate, you still LIVE.. If you can't afford an MRI, you DIE..

To ME, you don't have a RIGHT to the truck, but you DO have a RIGHT to live.

Hello Ex,

You completely missed my point. Read the post again. I was not really talking about the price of trucks. That was in illustration.

I am glad to see you have boarded the "right to life" express. That's good to know and is what many of us have been saying for decades.

[talaniman]

I think you make a big mistake just focusing on health care costs, as emotional and personal as they are for EVERYBODY, since it's but a symptom of a much larger economical model FLAW. One thing we learned for the Obama care debate was no matter what we do we can only slow the growth rate of those costs, and every nation with universal care is finding that fact out.

I am glad to see you have boarded the "right to life" express. That's good to know and is what many of us have been saying for decades.

Unfortunately while you advocate for life, you take no responsibility for it after it's here. That's sad that you think you can have it both ways.

[jlisenbe]

Unfortunately while you advocate for life, you take no responsibility for it after it's here. That's sad that you think you can have it both ways.

Actually, I'm about the only one who does take PERSONAL responsibility for people and who is, so far as I can tell, actually DOING something to help people. You advocating charity with someone else's money is not the same thing. Argue if you want to that I should be doing more, and I might agree with you, but don't think that your ideas of enforced government charity counts. It doesn't.

[talaniman]

It's not charity, the general welfare of the people is the governments responsibility among others. You just don't understand the RESPONSIBILITY part.

[jlisenbe]

It's not charity, the general welfare of the people is the governments responsibility among others. You just don't understand the RESPONSIBILITY part.

I understand very well. You think it is your responsibility to force others to take care of the poor. I think it is my responsibility and your responsibility to do so ourselves. No American has a right to another American's money. If you believe they do, then you should also give them a right to cars, houses, boats, and furniture.

[talaniman]

That's not even a valid argument since the law and Constitution is very clear. What part of the law is it you don't understand here? You may not like it much, but crying won't change either and clearly your side doesn't have the votes. What are you going to do secede from the union and declare yourself a country?

Let me know how that works out. Hey maybe Puerto Rico can replace you and we won't need a new flag.

[jlisenbe]

Constitution is very clear.

Now you are making things up. The preamble of the Constitution reads that the feds are to "provide for the general welfare." That means that which is good for the welfare of everyone, but there is no mention of individuals, nor is there even a hint that one American might have a right to the income of another American. In fact, for most of our history it was not done. The welfare mentality is rather recent.

Crying?? Good grief. Go back and read some of your posts about Trump and then come back and tell me about crying and complaining.

[talaniman]

My crying and comparing is based on EVIDENCE about the dufus. Must be nice to be able ignore EVIDENCE, by holding your nose.

[jlisenbe]

My crying and comparing is based on EVIDENCE about the dufus. Must be nice to be able ignore EVIDENCE, by holding your nose.

When you try to suggest that there is no evidence against HC, you lose all credibility. Benghazi. Private email server. Biggest supporter of her husband in his lying about M. Lewinsky. Lied about confidential emails. And that doesn't even count going back to Whitewater and the many accusations that swirled around that.

Now you will try to plead that she was not convicted of a crime. Yes, and in that regard she is EXACTLY like President Trump. So if you are going to whine about him, then you need to whine about her.

No evidence? Wow. That is an incredible statement. You must be holding your nose as well as your ears and covering your eyes.

[talaniman]

So if you are going to whine about him, then you need to whine about her.

No I don't. That's the loony rights job. You guys are great at it and have been for decades. My job is to vilify the dufus you elected. You do your job, I do mine and we see whose head explodes.

[jlisenbe]

It's your job if you want to be consistent in your moral values. But at least you have reached the point of being able to admit that there is much to cry about with HC. So when you speak of me holding my nose, just hold yours at the same time.

From my point of view, they are both corrupt on some level. So was Obama, and he has doubled down on it by his repeated claim that there was no scandal in his administration, which is a claim that should, as you put, make our heads explode.

[talaniman]

You do what you want with your nose but compared to the lying cheating dufus HC and Obama are saints.