Perhaps. But I’ve been wanting to say that for a looooong time.
A lot of good responses here, and some of the suggestions sound quite reasonable, or to put it another way, don’t sound very conservative. 
Sooner or later most come around to the idea that a system needs to be developed that allows low-income people to get care rather than being thrown to the wolves on the way to the emergency room.
And yet all nuance gets drowned out by the absolutist rancor about “socialism” and “government-run” this or that.
It’s inevitable that taxpayer money will be send on subsidizing care for those who can’t afford it, a lot already is. The task should be how to apply a large but limited amount in ways that maximize the alleviation of human suffering, is on some level fair, and is not self-devouring.
The idea of prohibiting businesses from buying insurance is worrisome beyond the heavy-handed government regulation angle. Shopping for their own insurance is liable to confuse a lot of people, and a lot more will simply forgo it, reducing the rolls, which would drive up costs (wouldn’t it?). And what would the average policy cost in comparison to the increase in wages?
But also, as I see it, the base of support on opposing health care reform is people who are steadily employed and for whom maintaining health insurance is something they simply don’t have to worry about, and if they need to see a doctor, it’s “free” or nearly so. There are just enough people for whom the system ain’t broke to oppose fixing it. Upend that applecart and wadaya got?
You read my mind with this one. Although in addition to nurses I was thinking ex-medics.
No one said anything about preventing businesses from offering health care plans. They just wouldn’t be tax deductible.
Clarify who pays the premiums on that catastrophic insurance.
Dude, you called attention to mazinger_z’s post, which included:
Also, bjbashier said,
Those things already exist.
Nurse practitioner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_practitioner
Physician’s Assistant. Physician assistant - Wikipedia
Nurse practitioners are like a step up from nurses, PAs are a step down from doctors. They can each diagnose and treat common conditions (to varying degrees, depending on the state and the position), write prescriptions (depending on the state), and perform basic emergency functions like intubation, suturing, setting bones, administering IVs, etc. They require less (and less expensive) schooling, naturally, than a full on MD/DO. The only caveat is that, in some manor, they have to be supervised by a real doctor. That can be as simple as a doctor looking over their charts after-the-fact and making sure they didn’t miss something huge.
As far as I know, there’s nothing stopping them from opening their own clinics, with a few rotating doctors to supervise. I’d be surprised to find out that such a thing didn’t exist.
In fact, some CVS pharmacy locations have something called MinuteClinics, which are manned by Nurse Practitioners. I’ve never dealt with them, but I’ve read some of their literature while bored and waiting for a Rx to be filled. Basically, you just pay for the visit, no insurance needed. The prices were rated by the type of visit. I think it was something like $30 for an ear infection. Obviously they aren’t going to treat your cancer there, but for your basic ailments (infections, colds, flu, etcetc) you should be all set.
Personally, I’d probably never go to one of those unless I ended up in a different lifestyle situation (one where I couldn’t afford sit around on a forum all day). I’m kind of a doctor enthusiast, so when I have symptoms that I’m sure are something like a sinus infection that any PA or Nurse Practitioner could write me an Rx for, I like the security of knowing that a full on real doctor has checked me out and ruled out some weird Dr. House disease, even though the premise of that show is that he’s the only doctor on earth to spot those diseases. I’m just sort of spoiled in that way.
:eek: 
:dubious: Amusing as that is, I assure you that I’m about as ‘conservative’ as they come. Obviously, everyone’s idea of what that means is different, and nobody will fit any definition perfectly, anyway, but I’m pretty darned conservative.
I don’t believe that most ppl marked as ‘conservative’ are actively trying to hurt the poor. In fact, even when it seems like they are, in my experience they’re actually trying to help the poor, they’re just trying to help them in a less obvious way. IMNSHO, less taxes = better for the poor in virtually every situation. That includes health care, SSA, everything. Even when those tax monies would have been spent “for the poor”.
Yar. I don’t like it when people sling terms and don’t listen to each other. Unfortunately, “slinging” and “don’t listen” pretty much describes virtually all political discussions, online and off.
100% agreement.
Yes, it’s worrisome. But I would argue that “the people are too stupid to do it themselves” is a poor rationale. Would costs increase? Well, insurance companies will do what they do and would certainly try to increase them. Personally, I would advocate a single year (maybe 2) of forcing the insurance companies to offer the exact same service at the exact same price to ppl that had been insured with them through a company just to help with the transition.
I agree that this is a massive problem with massive governmental control and massive opportunity to screw things up. I also believe that it’s “massively” better than anything “the left” has proposed. Competition doesn’t solve all problems, but monopolies (which is essentially what they have now) are almost always bad. Breaking up The Bells was going to cause massive problems, wasn’t it?
Base, maybe… but I would argue that the people you hear and the people who vote aren’t always the same. I myself have only just found a job (after more than 1 yr without). My family of 5 will still have no health insurance (technically, I’m a contractor), I am having my house foreclosed on, and we have been rationing our food. We have been supported on $600/mo from my father, and internet service, if you were about to ask, is required because we homeschool our children, and I need it with which to do my job.
I will say that I believe my troubles are nearly over (programming does pay well once you find a position), but I do not plan on getting myself health insurance unless I am required to by law. I have found for myself that paying doctors myself ends up being cheaper than buying regular insurance. I would consider catastrophic insurance only.
I love to debate politics (and religion). I just wish people were more calm and rational about it. :rolleyes: Thanks for listening.
Dangit. Posted in the wrong thread. Who does that?
The catastrophic insurance is universal and taxpayer-funded, but has a progressive sliding deductible such that it covers less and less of your health care costs as you go up the income scale. As you are more able to afford it, you are more required to fend for yourself when it comes to your own health care.
If you want to buy gap insurance to minimize the risk further, then go for it. But the government still won’t cover you for expenses that you can financially absorb without serious hardship.
Some of the things mentioned here are good, common sense suggestions, But how would they save money?
I’m afraid that there have been enough different suggestions, by enough people, that I’m not sure which ones you’re referring to. Which suggestion(s) would you like further discourse on? And are you more interested in saving taxpayer money, patient money, or what?
Silly me. Here I thought this thread was about discussing options for improving our lot in life. Not just slinging insults at people who disagree with us. My bad…TRM
The problem is I see no reason to think that conservatives have any desire to improve anyone’s lot in life. They’ve always been the ones trying to make people’s lives worse.
I think everyone gets that. Why not just post “The usual” once in every thread in which conservatism comes up? Or maybe you could have a few “routines” like The Bowery Boys did:
Der Trihs Routine 1: Conservatives are evil sadists. They want to not only kill people but make it painful. They hate poor people and people of color.
Der Trihs Routine 2: The U.S. is evil. All it cares about is money and spreading its influence throughout the world with the intent of destroying people and cultures in the process.
Der Trihs Routine 2-B: The U.S. military is evil. It is filled with murderous thugs who enjoy killing, raping, and ruining countries.
Der Trihs Routine 3: Religion is evil. It exists to keep women the property of men so they can be beaten. And to kill gays. It is seeks to kill as many non-adherents as possible and not only make people live in miserable conditions, but like it.
That about cover it? Of course, I might not have been able to capture the “passion” you bring these subjects. Feel free to ratchet it up as necessary.
Just think of the time savings! Think of how much more ignorance you could slay by just typing Der Trihs Routine 2:, Der Trihs Routine 3:, Der Trihs Routine 1:, Der Trihs Routine 2-B:, Der Trihs Routine 1:, Der Trihs Routine 3:, Der Trihs Routine 2:, etc. all day long!!
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/13/blue-cross-of-michigan-to-raise-individul-group-rates-by-22-percent/
In Michigan with huge unemployment problems and dropping wages, Bluecross announced a big time increase in prices for customers. From kids to seniors and everybody in between, the premiums will jump. I wonder if that will increase the number of people who can not afford coverage. It is nice to control both the market and the insurance board. Bluecross execs get paid like financial bosses at the big banks. Must be nice.
Well this is almost identical to ideas that I’ve had in the past, but it seems rather liberal. Would your Universal Catastrophic Health Care be single payer? It’s certainly rationed since it draws the line as to which conditions are serious enough to be covered.
Now can’t you agree that conservatives need to stop crying “socialism” as though it’s the economic equivalent of satanism? Neither your plan nor the Democrats’ plan is absolutely socialized medicine, and absolutely socialized medicine is not an absolutely socialized economy.
From that perspective, how much more socialistic the Democrats’ plan is than yours is hardly significant. And yet what do you think the reaction from most conservatives would be if it was your plan the Dems were touting?
Or you could just show up in a thread and say “Der Trihs is wrong for reasons which I will not describe!”. A nicely generic non-argument that would save you having to retype the same empty complaints.
Eh, observation of racial politics does show that some people really do want to be kicked in the nuts if a negro is also kicked in the nuts. Hatred of the other, once mixed with delusions of one’s own endurance & superiority, can be stronger than any desire for kind treatment of oneself from others.
Exactly. Thus the term “cutting off your nose to spite your face”; some people are so hate driven they are willing to hurt themselves as long as The Enemy suffers as well. And conservatism is rife with people.
Come on, guys. You really think that’s indicative of the majority of conservatives? Would you like me to start pointing out those same kinds of people on the liberal side?