"Medical Tourism" a big industry and growing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You hear about people going to Brazil or Thailand to get cheap plastic surgury and having their face totally screwed up.

I have no pity...

[Lancer]

"Kaiser Permanente is grudgingly for it."

"I don't care. I'd rather have my money in my pocket than in theirs. "

Zkrib, I'm sure you would. However why would "Kaiser Permanente" be for it?

"but then they see 7 million Californians who now have no medical insurace but who will be covered under CHIRA."

How does "Kaiser Permanente" realize any money from these "7 million Californians" if it is all done by the government? They shouldn't, we're cutting them out, right? That's why were seeing such a huge savings? These dudes are the other 'payor' that gets the ax in a single payor system, yes? Why does this make them "grudgingly for it"?

Brb, gotta go get the wife.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
How does "Kaiser Permanente" realize any money from these "7 million Californians" if it is all done by the government? They shouldn't, we're cutting them out, right? That's why were seeing such a huge savings? These dudes are the other 'payor' that gets the ax in a single payor system, yes? Why does this make them "grudgingly for it"?

Kaiser Permanente has two parts. Kaiser provides medical service; Permanente is the insurance part.

Under this plan, Permanente takes it in the neck....but the Kaiser doctors have a shot at getting up to 7 million more patients, and getting paid through CHIRA for providing medical services to them.

[Lancer]

Starchild, does the UK system actually work? I've heard horror stories of people in Canada having to wait so long for 'free' medical treatment that they become medical tourists just because they are sick of being sick. So, the UK isn't like that?

"Yes, but not all nations can be as rich as the UK.
Maybe when the US economcy improves..."

Yeah right CT. The interesting thing about the 'commonwealth' is that wealth is so uncommon.

"That's because, rather than come up with a truely progressive policy on universal, single-payer health care, they came up with a chimera of greatly expanded health care run through the insurance companies. Instead of giving people what they wanted, they tried to compromise with everyone and keep it in the private sector. The Clintons were either too timid to push for real health care or they were in the back pocket of the insurance companies or, more likely, both. On top of this, it was insanely complicated.

The LPUSA program is vastly simpler. Health-insurance for all, run by the Feds, paid for by a 5% tax on businesses (for those businesses already paying for insurance, this will be a significant drop in costs), with a program to retrain insurance workers who lose their jobs, and which also allows people to pick their doctors.

With a 50% cut in costs due to the massive diminution of overhead, the whole country will save money. Businesses, for the most part, should love this, as it will mean a rather substantial increase in the amount of capital they have available for investment."

Che, to retrain all those workers you would have to cut regulations on business making it more profitable to hire in the country than out, but your health care system sounds good. Also, when Billy Clinton 'retrained' all the loggers he put out of work by making so much national forest illegal to harvest, he increased the slots in government to employ them. So, the contractors had to pay higher licence fees, and the government used the $ to hire more OSHA *******s, who went around harrassing the contractors during their work. I got a $500 fine for working on a roof 10' 4" off the ground without a harness, 4" higher than the legal limit. They would park across the street from where you were working and secretly take pictures and then swoop down in bunches to bust you, like you're cooking crack or something. The government really has to get off the backs of business if they are going to be expected to hire all these unemployed insurance people.

"There's still auto, home, renter, flood, hurricane, malpractice, etc."

Che, That's a good point. Glad I could have my rant before I saw it.

"You hear about people going to Brazil or Thailand to get cheap plastic surgury and having their face totally screwed up."

Oerdin, they discuss that in the article in my second link. I don't really like their answer too much though. One of the things that make it so cheap is that you can't sue. If that makes an operation affordable where it wasn't before...well you roll the dice or you don't. I'll never get such a treatment unless I'm in an accident or something like that, but I'd have had my apendix out there if I had the option.

"I have no pity..."

We knew that Kuci, lets not beat a dead dog.

Man, I just realized what a sick saying that is.

[Lancer]

"Kaiser Permanente has two parts. Kaiser provides medical service; Permanente is the insurance part.

Under this plan, Permanente takes it in the neck....but the Kaiser doctors have a shot at getting up to 7 million more patients, and getting paid through CHIRA for providing medical services to them."

Aha! Light shines were once there was only darkness.

[Lancer]

bump blah

[chequita guevara]

nm

[Dinner]

If the government just became the insurence company which provided basic universal care then there would still be a market for people who wanted and who could pay for extra care or shorter lines. This supplimental insurence is used in places like the UK.

Also the hospitals themselves should stay privately owned while the governemnt just acts as an insurence company which every hospital and health clinic would by law have to accept.

[Lancer]

So income taxes would pay for health care? We need to dump the wasteful insurance companies. Then again, government isn't much better. Oregon really fights claims they're supposed to be paying...no $.

In europe can citizens sue the doctors? Aren't they government employees? Can't sue the government, right?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
So income taxes would pay for health care?

Not 'zackly. Employers which now pay health insurance benefits would redirect most (about 84%) of that money to the government...since this 84% is a legally mandated collection of money by the government, it's a tax. [However, if you were the employer, which would you rather pay: 100% to the insurance co or 84% to the govt?]

Employers who don't currently provide healthcare would have to pay into the plan. Similarly, self-employed would have to pay a portion of their income for healthcare. Improvished people can get a waiver. Monies from the federal government for healthcare (medical) would also be directed into this plan.

--Except for the bit about the self-employed, individuals would have to pay no more in taxes.

We need to dump the wasteful insurance companies.

You said it! $8 billion saved the first year; $343 billion saved over 10 years. Pretty soon, you're talking real money.

Can't sue the government, right?

You can. But there has to be a specific constitutional or statutory provision allowing the particular kind of suit.

The first example that pops to mind is premises liablity. If, through inattentiveness, you allow a dangerous condition to occur on your land in California, and it injures someone, you're liable. However, you may sue the government of California for dangerous conditions on its land only if it caused the dangerous condiction or if it actually knew about it but did nothing. None of this negligent failure to inspect stuff.

[Zkribbler]

opps

d/p