Ok, Let’s Fix Healthcare
I’m just going to assume that this will totally piss off the neighbors with the title alone. Screw you if you are thinking that right now, and you might as well just click the fuck past this. If not, read on, because I’m pissed the hell off. Why? Because I honestly am concerned about the future of our great nation. Especially when it comes to the relative level of Socialism we tolerate inside our democratic society. That and I don’t want to wind up the subject of a death panel nor do I wish to be told what the fuck to buy. I’d be assed up even if Congress told me to buy bacon. It’s the principle of the thing, not the bacon.
That said, I was pissed off when Clinton tried this shit, and went to a latrine to vomit after seeing Nancy-Skeletor-Pelosi grinning her deathmask grin behind Obama as he signed this death notice to liberty into law. For the record, it was full of bile and quite bitter.
However, as an intelligent citizen who was born at night, but not last night, I’ve given this shit some thought and have arrived at what I think is a pretty reasonable solution to the problem:
One: we force a nationwide referendum through for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Okay, this has nothing to do with healthcare, but what the fuck? At a minimum, this ought to create enough time on the floors of the House and Senate to actually work on important shit that we need done, instead of posture like demagogues before the mainstream media whores and spout partisan bullshit… wow, that just was out loud, wasn’t it?
Two: we insist on legislation that limits small claims and tort reform. Such a law would impose penalties on those who file suit for damages against .. well, anyone to be completely fair here… should they bring suit against another party and lose. These penalties would include a stipulation that the suing party be subject to pay all court and ALL legal fees of the entire proceeding subject to the case being lost by the petitioner. Also, the lawyer representing the plaintiff would be required to suffer loss of his bar certification for two years. Last, there would be a $200,000 cap on damages imposed, and a limit of 5% of awards that the plaintiff’s lawyer can collect.
Third: We ensure that the government imposes strict regulation on the insurance industry, just like it did on airlines. To my mind, this would go on for at least ten years so we can all enjoy reasonable rates and recover all the deducibles we’ve had sodomized out of us in the past. Maybe someone a lot smarter than me can come up with language in this measure that somehow uses human greed, pride, and Darwinism to ensure that only well-intentioned and morally-correct people are made the incoming CEO’s of the big insurance firms. And obviously no bailouts would be forthcoming here because if you can’t survive on your own, then maybe you ought to be dead. Right? Right – Darwin Fucking Rocks.
I think I came up with another good idea here. It’s not bill-ready, but if you want to, hit print and mail it to your favorite assfuck Congressman or -woman to give them a clear heads-up. In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for an unfavorable judgement from the Death Panel.
BrainRants 
January 13, 2012 at 09:46
Not gonna say I disagree (much), but I don’t think the problem is the ideas, it’s the people entrusted to complete them and the atmosphere
If Rs and Ds can’t sit in the same room together, a constitutional amendment isn’t going to stop the posturing or get them to work together.
It will come down to the same clusterfuck jackassitude that got us a lowered credit rating and a congress with a lower approval rating than…well, just about anything.
You and I, from different points of view (yeah, I’m a Dem. Deal with it) can probably argue back and forth about gov’t, each of us able to convince the other of the merits of some of our ideas.
Congress? Should all be put in a mixer and used as concrete.
January 13, 2012 at 11:00
I think we disagree less than you might think, Guapola. The amendment was just to keep Congress focused on important shit.
January 13, 2012 at 11:24
We have universal health care here in Canada. I am curious to see what people say here. Rest assured that there are big issues here. Cost, wait times and typical government running something I’m their unique way problems. Is it cheaper, likely not. It is not possible for government to do things cheap. The other issue is it becomes entrenched as a sacred cow. Good example. Saskatchewan had only 2 MRI in the whole province. It us about 2 times bigger than Texas. A group volunteered to buy one to set up a clinic. All would be billed through the state system as a nonprofit. The hovernment said no as all equipment had to be owned by the province and run by the province.( insert government union here) This even though the province could not afford one and the waiting list for an MRI was I’m the years not days.
January 13, 2012 at 12:16
That’s exactly the bullshittery that will start here as well. It may be cheap for the individual, but not necessarily better quality either. And it will take more tax money to make it cheap…
January 13, 2012 at 12:29
I wouldn’t say it’s cheap either. I dint know what your current premiums are and what bang for the buck is involved, bit I believe the last time anyone checked the tax cost here it was 2500 or so a year and maybe more. That is raj taxpayer. So in my household we pay at least 5k per year and some estimates are as high ad 8 or 9k. Our Feds are looking at ways to allow more private enterprise to participate as well in order to, love this, reduce cost and refuse waiting times.
January 13, 2012 at 12:31
I hate iPhones and fat thumbs. Reduce wait times and per taxpayer.
January 13, 2012 at 12:43
No reason the market can’t do that too.
January 13, 2012 at 12:58
Yeah, but in the last 20 years, have they?
January 13, 2012 at 13:18
Yes, within the context of high insurance premiums resulting from lawsuits.
January 13, 2012 at 13:53
While lawsuit payments have gone up around 1.5 – 2% in the last 10 years, malpractice insurance for doctors has gone up over 20%. That (based on what I’ve been reading) is the cause of the escalation of fees.
In addition, Health Care Insurer profits have gone through the roof this year.
Don’t think the lawsuits are quite to blame…I think it’s more a case of what people will pay, pricing average folks out of the market, or choosing to whether to buy gas or pay a premium…
January 13, 2012 at 14:58
I’d say we’re saying much the same thing here.
January 13, 2012 at 11:43
Well said, sir, well said.
January 13, 2012 at 12:16
Thank you!
January 13, 2012 at 14:26
Okay, I will seem like a dumbass retard, but can you, short and easy, tell me for what you are pro or contra? As a Dutch speaking creature it feels justified yet stupid to ask.
Still, I’ll take the risk.
January 13, 2012 at 14:59
I am against government-run and government-regulated healthcare. And you’re not stupid.
January 14, 2012 at 06:30
I believe we have government-regulated healthcare, and it does work here, as long as it will last… I know too little about it to judge it, but it seems that it’s working. For the moment, at least. Only, this system has been working here for years already – its situation is different from yours.
So actually it’s no good idea to talk about it too much (for me).
January 14, 2012 at 07:05
I won’t argue your system, but I would suggest that Europeans and Americans have vastly different mindsets about this kind of thing.
January 14, 2012 at 07:39
Yes, I believe that’s true. I’ve been raised in this system – it’s normal that I’m more in favour than against. It’s also the fact that I once heard about Americans that could not afford healthcare, to the point of dying. It scared me. But then again, little do I know, and I guess you do not support these situations either. It’s so difficult, all of it. You want to help everyone who needs it – but how?
January 14, 2012 at 08:02
Our system had and has many faults. I believe we’re fixing symptoms and not causes over here.
January 13, 2012 at 17:10
But….don’t you in fact HAVE government run and regulated healthcare as a member of the military – one under which a female can get breast implants completely paid for, and a male could get liposuction? (Hint: I already know the answer to both of these.) And isn’t it working pretty well (based on you not complaining about it)? And don’t most Americans over 55 have government-run and -regulated healthcare in the form of Medicaid and Medicare? Should we get rid of that? Or do you think “the government should stay out of Medicare”?
And don’t we all in fact have government mandated car insurance? And wasn’t the whole “death panel” thing debunked a long long time ago?
And fun for me to say, isn’t Romney going to be your candidate for 2012?
January 13, 2012 at 19:02
I’m well versed in military healthcare, yes, and you’re right on both. However, it’s broke, slow, and substandard. And now the whole country gets it too, right?
January 13, 2012 at 21:03
Are you saying health care is perfect the way it is? It’s better the way it is now, without government getting involved? What’s the alternative? We have mostly private insurance now, and it sucks. A lot of people think we should move completely to government-run health care, and you think that sucks. What is the solution? What’s the right answer?
Unlike most industries, you think that maybe the health care industry should not be driven by making a profit, but by *gasp* keeping people healthy? Radical idea, I know.
January 13, 2012 at 19:58
The country can’t afford universal health-care AND a military. You (personally) either get broke, slow and substandard service, or no job which qualifies you for it. If you want public health service, the country’s gotta get out of the war business.
January 13, 2012 at 20:35
Or get out of the healthcare business… right?
January 13, 2012 at 21:04
It can get out of neither.
January 13, 2012 at 22:04
True, but it ought to.
January 14, 2012 at 06:04
I had that government run healthcare in the Army, and as a result wouldn’t wish it on anyone. My wife had a misdiagnosed condition through five years in the army. One flare up and a visit to a non-government run hospital later, aand her problem was fixed. I once went in with an ingrown toenail, and as an active duty member was seen before a dependent child with a broken arm. Not sure what the other people in the ER had when I went in, but they were all still there when I left. And don’t say I should have volunteered to let someone else go first because I tried and not only was I told no, I was told that I couldn’t leave and come back later and that if I did I would get an Article 15.
As for Healthcare. I think that the Federal government should create a malpractice insurance and get the doctors to get their insurance. If they do then any litigation against them would be limited by law, that way all the doctors would want the insurance. With lowered litigation costs, the price for services would neccessarily go down. Plus instead of having all the people paying into the system, we’d only have the doctors paying in. Fewer people, less difficulty enforcing, smaller lawsuits, lowered costs, etc.
The decision to “give” everyone health insurance without fixing the problem is like putting out a fire with gasoline.
January 14, 2012 at 06:18
I have experienced your pain with Army medicine, but still maintain the government cannot compel us to purchase anything.
January 14, 2012 at 07:27
They compel us to purchase tags, licenses, and car insurance. Should they stop doing that too? Is that putting out fire with gasoline? They even make us pay for uninsured people. How socialist!
And Jonathan, I feel your pain. Why, in the private and voluntary health care system, they literally never misdiagnose anyone!
January 14, 2012 at 08:04
EH, you make a good point with licenses, etc., but somehow there’s a difference of intent, practice and outcome that I believe will grow into the realm of the catastrophic. We’re trying to treat the symptom, not the ailment…
January 14, 2012 at 10:15
Humour the Canuck. Is not the big argument over the Feds mandating it? As i understand it, the vehicle insurance etc is mandated by the individual states.
January 14, 2012 at 10:21
That is the crux of the argument. And don’t get me started on insurance in general. It’s institutionalized, subsidized, and government-supported gambling, no more, no less.
January 14, 2012 at 11:18
So the problem isn’t being mandated to do something, it’s not even being mandated to do something by the government, it’s WHICH government? Seriously?
January 14, 2012 at 11:24
And Rants, you have of course dropped all forms of insurance that aren’t mandated, right?
Insurance in all its forms is necessary. It’s a fact of life, literally. I don’t get how people will go put their lives on the line for their country in an abstract way, but will balk at paying a few extra dollars so some actual individuals can have insurance that wouldn’t ordinarily. If you can accept that not everyone can be in the military, you should be able to accept that not everyone can afford or acquire insurance. And if you have a problem with some people juicing the system, well you should know that people juice every single system humans have invented, including the military.
Also a fact of life.
January 14, 2012 at 11:51
EH, as usual you argue well. I balk at a system that has evolved to the point where I’m forced to have insurance as a protection. Overall, though, the answer is yes, I’ve got the bare minimum required as I see it.
As for folks who otherwise couldn’t afford it – they still have opportunity to go out and make a living so they can. Just like me.
To your point on the military: our force is all-volunteer. Suppose I showed up and said, “Your number’s up Hotspur. Put this uniform on and come with me. Or else.” ? That’s the equivalent I see coming from mandated healthcare.
January 14, 2012 at 12:56
So pretty much a draft. Which, if the conflict were big enough, I imagine would get re-instituted.
While this is a great debate you have going, no one (including you BR) has suggested a way to fix healthcare.
To say that people should get a job, I’m not clear on what benefits Walmart offers, or how many hoops need to be jumped through to get them.
I do know that I can’t function without medical insurance (insulin dependent diabetic) and have made offered insurance a huge criteria of any job search I do.
I’ve also been employed since college, but hey, our economy sucks, and like everyone else, my company is 1 bad event away from layoffs.
Having payed into all tax/fee/etc systems my whole working life, I shouldn’t have something better than “sorry dude” to help me out if everyhting goes pear shaped?
January 14, 2012 at 14:41
Guapola, you ought to have the opportunity (read: freedom from restriction) to create enough assets to take care of yourself. And as for job creation, that is an entire and separate rant, seriously. Too much red tape.
January 14, 2012 at 16:24
You’re forced to have insurance by circumstances anyway. There’s really not much difference, is there? And by ‘bare minimum required’, do you mean by you, or by law? The law doesn’t require you to have homeowner’s insurance. So you don’t have that, right?
As for “opportunity”, you keep saying that like it is exactly the same as reality. It’s not, or you wouldn’t be in the military, you’d be a millionaire. You know, because you have the “opportunity” to be a millionaire, so you can be one. It’s just that simple, right?
And like Guapo said, they’ve already had a draft, and people who avoided it were and still are considered cowardly draft dodging antipatriots who hate America. But your analogy isn’t a good one. Most people don’t volunteer to or even want to be in the military. Whereas, most people volunteer to get health insurance and want to get it, and most people actually do have it. It’s similar to the government making a law that says everyone must eat. And you coming along and saying “whoa, I don’t need government intrusion in my life to tell me to eat, and anyone who can’t afford food, well, let them eat cake!”
I don’t understand your “freedom from restriction” comment. How are you being restricted? A law that says you must have insurance, but you can get any insurance that you want, insurance that you were going to have anyway regardless of there being a law or not – is restrictive?
January 14, 2012 at 18:11
I have a problem with government getting down into what kind of insurance I have to buy. I have a problem with the fact that the insurance industry has lobbied with huge dollars to make insurance mandatory. No, I have no homeowner insurance – at all. I cover my cars from other asshats, and rue the deductible all week long.
I could easily be a millionaire, Hotspur. I’m smart and talented enough to be one right now, no conceit here. But I like to be part of something larger than myself and something that does good for all of us, which is why I serve. Call me a sappy patriot. I don’t need you or expect you to understand that because I’m going to go put myself between you and whatever threatens your opportunity to make a cool million every time I’m asked to. And don’t parse that sentence and question my choice of ‘asked’ vice ‘ordered to’ because to me it’s all the same. I go willingly regardless of your interpretation. Someone has to do it, and it might as well be me, because I fucking give a shit.
To cut to the chase, read the Constitution. No interpretation of the Commerce Clause allows the Fed to tell you or me to buy insurance. Or dictates a health plan. Or allows death panels. Think that’s an extreme statement? It’s happening within HMO’s right now, brother. Pull your head out of the Ohio soil. That constipated feel you have right now is the big Federal dick up your private asshole.
January 14, 2012 at 18:37
If Death Panels are happening within HMOs now, then isn’t gov’t intervention necessary?
A business’ purpose is to make money. A gov’t purpose is to take care of its citizens.
GE spent decades pouring all sorts of wtf into the Hudson. I’m actually kind of glad Uncle Sam stepped in and said they couldn’t any more.
Can you see any circumstance in which they should be involved in healthcare? Because in the end, when any uninsured person shows up needing care, they foot the bill.
January 14, 2012 at 22:01
Guapo, agreed.
January 14, 2012 at 18:46
Sorry, also
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Unless your insurance company operates in your state, an argument can be made…
January 14, 2012 at 22:01
Exactly.
January 14, 2012 at 20:01
BrainRants, I don’t believe for a second that you intentionally chose being in the military over being a millionaire. Please. If you could, you would. You would be able “to be a part of something larger than yourself and that does good for all of us” as a millionaire with far greater effect and far better results than you do as an officer.
Death panels – true, every day, some group of people decides whether Person X gets that lifesaving treatment or procedure. Last time I checked, insurance companies were private companies. Why do you only (and frequently) associate death panels with government healthcare, or liberals, or Democrats, or Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.? Come on.
You’re right about the Commerce Clause and the Fed. But why would you be against the fed mandating your insurance but okay with a state government mandating it? And if you don’t have house insurance, what happens if your house burns down, or gets knocked over by a tornado?
As for your “private asshole” comment, that was uncalled for. This is one single issue being discussed by adults, not the end of the world. There’s no need to promote that private to FGO, if you get my drift.
January 14, 2012 at 22:05
“Private” was meant in the civilian sense, not the enlisted rank sense, and the orifice referred to your particular opening, not as a descriptive term for you as a whole. Sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning. As for my choice, believe what you will. Your free will in belief is another thing I defend. I have a great time doing what I do.
January 14, 2012 at 23:15
Yeah, it sure sounds like it. “I’m sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning”? Funny, ironic and insincere. I know what you meant. That’s why my comment was one of those ‘double meaning’ things.
Thank you for giving me permission to enjoy my Constitutional freedom to believe what I want. I give you permission to exercise your Constitutional freedom to misrepresent an entire political ideology as well! Have fun with it. And go drink a bottle of yourself.
January 15, 2012 at 04:57
Though my goal wasn’t to change your mind, I’ll stop doing that nonetheless.
January 14, 2012 at 09:57
I worked for an HMO for about 8 yrs – one of the big ones with the cross n shield…(Fraud is a major factor in helping to drive costs up)
Also – you get a letter in the mail that says THIS IS NOT A BILL – most people see that and throw it away – but its an explanation of your benefits and needs to be looked at – thoroughly – lots of mistakes can be made – somone should always call about a billing error and you also have the right to appeal a decision you dont agree with..I think everybody should have access to good and affordable healthcare – and I personally cant imagine the government mandating the guidelines for this…but then again..I just dont know….I agree 100% that we have a healthcare problem that needs to be fixed.
January 14, 2012 at 10:20
It’s all confusing, yes. I suspect somewhat intentional too. Like a phone bill.
January 15, 2012 at 09:32
Dang…please dont get mad at me for saying this – but, ya’ll went crazy like some foxes on this subject.
January 15, 2012 at 10:58
Or something.