It sounds great - the government will pay for one of the most costly expenses we have. No more worries!
The main problem is simple - no matter how you slice it, we cannot afford it. Here are some reasons it simply cannot work and how it would devastate the health care system:
1) Even if we taxed billionaires AND millionaires at a full 100% it would not even come close to paying the $3 trillion plus tab each year, and growing yearly
2) Medicare only pays about 1/3 of actual costs - hospitals, doctors, clinincs etc. count on the private insurance policies to pick up the difference, which is what drives up the cost of insurance. Under Medicare For All, the insurance companies will be gone. This results in either hospitals and doctors going bust, leaving us without care, or the government would have to up the minimums they pay, resulting in higher taxes for us all
3) Medicare For All would result in much heavier burdens on the health care services. If you think it's bad to wait weeks for an appointment, or 8 hours waiting in the waiting room, just wait until tens of millions more people are trying to cut in for every little hangnail or wart.
I am truly amazed that our lawmakers are ignoring the REAL ways we can make health care not only better and more efficient, but less costly, as well. I have posted those things several times, and it does not take a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure it out. For those who missed it...
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. They have to, in order to make up the difference for the discounting of costs by Medicare and self-payers (uninsured). Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried.science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. We don't need a go-between to speak with God, so we should not need one to see a specialist.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into the R&D. But they often profit TOO much. They can often find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, and can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug, regardless of what is is used for. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so could the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing the R & D, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or cover new tax deductions on the purchase of any exercise equipment or athletic gear, to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected would be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Entire Populations of 2 Large Nations Aborted
Since Roe vs Wade in '73 there have been almost as many abortions as the entire combined populations of Canada and Australia. Over 58 million. And of those, the average pair of adults would have spawned at least 2.3 children (another 60 million never to be born), and many grand-children. I wonder how many of those would object if only they could.
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
Saturday, January 19, 2019
The Myth of "Toxic Masculinity"
I must say I was surprised when Gillette put out their "Toxic Masculinity" ad. I guess they just wanted to jump on the bandwagon that's going around now. Some people - and businesses - will sell their souls in search of profit. And if the people behind this foolishness actually believe in it, I pity them.
Here is the truth, for those with enough sanity left to want to understand it. First, let's look at what masculinity is, and why it even exists:
In nature, there are two genders, and each has specific functions. Females are the only ones who can give birth, and they obviously are tasked by nature to be the nurturers - after all, it would be tough for a man to breast feed. To insure the survival of the race, the male is made physically stronger (usually) and is tasked with protecting the birth-givers and the defenseless children. People of lesser intellect and understanding might object to that, but the simple truth is that it is the way of nature.
For purposes of nurturing, women tend to be more "feminine" - more tuned to the emotions, and men tend to be more "masculine" - strong enough to be protectors.
Certainly, social norms are being usurped and twisted lately by people who live to be offended, or see everyone as victims. Such people see masculinity as the reason behind bullying, fighting, wars and bad behavior in general. They seem to overlook, conveniently, that many women are also progenitors of bad behavior. Bad behavior knows no sexual orientation. Masculinity is not the cause of bad behavior any more than food is the cause of obesity. The cause is the misuse and abuse of them.
It is not masculinity that is toxic - the toxicity is a product of bad behavior, whether from men or women. Masculinity gets blamed simply because men ARE the protectors, which often requires violence, as there will always be evil in the world. The problem arises when boys are not properly raised to understand the role of masculinity, and are not taught how to use it properly. Children need to be guided, to insure they become the kind of adults that will insure our survival. Boys need to be taught from a very young age that their strength is to be used to protect women, children, the disabled and the mentally challenged, and only use their strength accordingly. They need to be taught the truth of the words of the great Khalil Gibran - Only the strong can afford to be kind, gentle.
Masculinity is no more toxic than femininity. It is the misuse of it that causes the problems. The "feminist movement" is just as toxic, turning the battle of the sexes into a take-no-prisoners war that is causing men to avoid the interactions that are necessary for the human race to survive. Intelligent people understand that children, like anything else that grows, grow best when properly cultivated. If we want better behavior from anyone, we need to teach them, and raise them well. Civilization does not come naturally - it takes diligence in raising the next generation to know their role, and to be good at it.
In nature - whether a human, a wolf or a bumblebee - males and females all have specific roles, and no role is more important than any other. But they are different. If we allow "social bullies" to bully us into making men more feminine, or women more masculine, we are dooming our own existence.
/
Here is the truth, for those with enough sanity left to want to understand it. First, let's look at what masculinity is, and why it even exists:
In nature, there are two genders, and each has specific functions. Females are the only ones who can give birth, and they obviously are tasked by nature to be the nurturers - after all, it would be tough for a man to breast feed. To insure the survival of the race, the male is made physically stronger (usually) and is tasked with protecting the birth-givers and the defenseless children. People of lesser intellect and understanding might object to that, but the simple truth is that it is the way of nature.
For purposes of nurturing, women tend to be more "feminine" - more tuned to the emotions, and men tend to be more "masculine" - strong enough to be protectors.
Certainly, social norms are being usurped and twisted lately by people who live to be offended, or see everyone as victims. Such people see masculinity as the reason behind bullying, fighting, wars and bad behavior in general. They seem to overlook, conveniently, that many women are also progenitors of bad behavior. Bad behavior knows no sexual orientation. Masculinity is not the cause of bad behavior any more than food is the cause of obesity. The cause is the misuse and abuse of them.
It is not masculinity that is toxic - the toxicity is a product of bad behavior, whether from men or women. Masculinity gets blamed simply because men ARE the protectors, which often requires violence, as there will always be evil in the world. The problem arises when boys are not properly raised to understand the role of masculinity, and are not taught how to use it properly. Children need to be guided, to insure they become the kind of adults that will insure our survival. Boys need to be taught from a very young age that their strength is to be used to protect women, children, the disabled and the mentally challenged, and only use their strength accordingly. They need to be taught the truth of the words of the great Khalil Gibran - Only the strong can afford to be kind, gentle.
Masculinity is no more toxic than femininity. It is the misuse of it that causes the problems. The "feminist movement" is just as toxic, turning the battle of the sexes into a take-no-prisoners war that is causing men to avoid the interactions that are necessary for the human race to survive. Intelligent people understand that children, like anything else that grows, grow best when properly cultivated. If we want better behavior from anyone, we need to teach them, and raise them well. Civilization does not come naturally - it takes diligence in raising the next generation to know their role, and to be good at it.
In nature - whether a human, a wolf or a bumblebee - males and females all have specific roles, and no role is more important than any other. But they are different. If we allow "social bullies" to bully us into making men more feminine, or women more masculine, we are dooming our own existence.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)