Correction

  Yesterday I put up a post stating that I had solved the health care issue and could do it for much less than any of the proposed plans now making their way through congress.

 I said that I could give every man, women and child, health insurance with money to spare and to spend.

 My plan would have given the estimated four hundred million people in the country a million dollars each.

 My math was faulty and I stated that it would cost around four hundred million.

  After re-doing the math it actually would cost around four hundred trillion.

  It just goes to show , that when you start to think like a socialist , the math is secondary.

  I was so caught up in the belief that I could solve everyone’s problems that I didn’ take the time to weigh the real cost.

 If only our political leader would take a step back and re-do the math on the proposals they put forward as being in our best interest and realize it is not their place to solve all of our personal problems.

  How can we possibly think that we can give every man, woman and child health insurance at a savings to the country, without raising taxes ?

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Correction”

  1. meatball Says:

    Because we already collectively pay more than any other country in the world? Try and keep up, Frank.

  2. Tim J Says:

    Meatball the thing is more health care is received in America than in any other country in the world. When you get more it tends to cost more.

  3. frankknotts Says:

    meatball, you are correct that we collectively pay more, and no one can be denied health care by law. So why must we mandate health insurance , when it is health insurance that drives up the cost of health care . When people have insurance that covers every scratch and runny nose then they run to the doctor because they see it as being at no cost. If the insurance is seenn also to be an entitlement then it will be abuse even more. This trivial use of health insurance bogs the system down and drives up the cost. Also the over use of testing on the part of doctors to protect themselves from malpractice suits raises the cost also.
    If we want to lower the cost of health care then we should cap the amount of settlements. We should remove pain and suffering as a legal claim against a doctor. Money will not bring back a loved one. If you want to sue for medical cost , lost wages real and estimated, and if you want to sue to have a doctors medical license revoked okay. But to seek revenge through monitary reward seems seedy to me.

  4. meatball Says:

    Agree with much of what you said in comment #3. Single payer would eliminate the cost of insurance companies.

    “Also the over use of testing on the part of doctors to protect themselves from malpractice suits raises the cost also.”

    While I agree more testing equals greater cost, I believe your premise to be misinformed. In my experience, many doctors are really not adequate diagnosticians. In other words, they have no idea what is wrong with you unless they have a load of diagnostics to tell them (so they order lots of tests). Of course malpractice suits are of concern, but really most doctors do want you to get better (and not die).

    Tim,
    You are arguing for rationing. Countries that we out spend by double as a percentage of GDP have better outcomes. USA ranks 42nd in the world for life expectancy. Cubans on average live longer than US citizens. The US system is beyond a shadow of doubt, broken.

  5. frankknotts Says:

    meatball, let me respond first to your response to Tim about Cubans living longer. Part of that is most likely due to the American life style. We are able to over eat and exercise less due to the fact that many of our jobs are sedentary. Now I know that you would never suggest that we give up our standard of living and force people to move to the country and become subsistence farmers as was the case in revolutionary China .
    And I am certainly not in favor of single payer insurance especially if the payer is the government, singal payer will lead to zero choice and raise the level of corruption of the system. It would also lead to less coverage due to the fact that the singal payer would be in the position to decide what would be covered. Freedom of choice and personal responsibility is always the best answer to any problem.

  6. meatball Says:

    No, no ,no please don’t make them move to the country:] I think you know my position on that, Frank.

    Yes, government funded studies show that people who eat right and exercise regularly tend to be healthier. The key word there is “tend”
    There is more to it than that my friend.

    I’m not sure why you think there would be greater corruption in the system under single payer. The parts of medicare identified with corruption are the supplementals that involve for profit insurance companies. Eliminating that is part of the savings.

    Medicare folks do not get turned down for practically anything. Did you see Shep Smith interview Senator Barrasso on FOX?

  7. frankknotts Says:

    Let me stop here for a second because we are getting lost in the weeds of the issue. What is really at question here is not how we can do this, but should we . Should we be forcing citizens who are happy with what they have or happy to have nothing to be mandated into a government plan?Or into any plan? Is this even constitutional? When did it become government’s place to tell us that we must insure our health ?
    The real question is , should we give up our freedom of choice forever just to lesson the burden of a few?Look at it this way, do you truly do your child any favor by giving them everything that they want ? Isn’t it better to teach them that somethings they will have to work for themselves?If you don’t force them to stand on their own two feet from time to time then they will never learn personal responsibility. The same is true of citizens, if they never have to work for anything , then they feel entitled to everything, this is unrealistic. It is utopian thinking that can never be realized.

  8. meatball Says:

    This is the best point you have made in the entire debate. However, if you are happy with the insurance you have, keep it. That’s in all the bills. If you don’t have insurance and you are happy, you are stupid and a burden to society.

    It may be one’s choice to be uninsured, but then should they fall ill or become accidentally injured, they should be denied care. We’ll call them the new “illegals” free loaders of the worst kind, as bad as red light runners, speeders, and other scafflaws.

    The real utopian thinking is the bootstrap theory conservatives proport to believe in. The majority of personal bankruptcies in the USA are due to unpayable medical bills.

  9. frankknotts Says:

    meatball, though it may be in the bills that you can keep the coverage you have, there are also mandates and triggers that will force you out. Not to mention that private insurers will never be able to compete against government subsidized insurance, so how long will I be able to choose my own option.
    I will not argue that having no insurance is risky.But why is it government’s responsibility to supply it or to rob me to pay for those who choose to leach off society. Let me be clear, I am not talking about the elderly(with means testing) or the truly poor (for a limited time) I am talking about those within our society who have been trained and or chosen to live off of the crumbs of someone elses table and then demands more from the table . Those who contribute nothing to the pot , but their hands and those are always palms up.
    And don’t knock boot straps a lot of good and successful people have pulled themselves up by them and contributed great things to society.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: