There is no way to properly fund it without taxing the hell out of everyone. Beyond that name one situation in which the government has excelled at handling large sums of money that were earmarked for the people.

Social security-What lockbox, we'll just drop that in the general fund and spend it. What..... its bankrupt you say, how did that happen?

Medicare-Medicaid- Don't even have to comment on that.

How many trillion in debt are we now...oh yes 9 trillion dollars.

It really is not that hard to balance a budget. You can't spend more then you take in.

Thats why I don't think the National Government should handle health care. They would just botch it like everything else.

Ohio's WComp. invested in rare coins.






God it was a great scam!

We are already spending more than enough on healthcare.It's not like more money needs to go in to fund it.We just need to get lawyers,and insurance companies' hands out of our healthcare money.We have the funds,but we piss it away by giving it to these 2 groups.You would rather do that then have the Gov't run it,and so we will continue to have poor healthcare in this country.

they need to cap lawsuits. people need to quit treating accidents and such as winning the lottery.
i don't know how many people have already told us to get a lawyer because of my daughters wreck. no injury or anything. only thing i want is for the guy to be charged with reckless driving. what do i need a lawyer for?

Lawyers and ins companies have, in the long view, have little to do with the cost of health care. This is the rhetoric of politicians who every 3-4 years say they can solve HC costs by "taking on" these two groups (plus pharma) and making things more efficient." If you made medical lawyers and ins companies non-profit, you'd have a modest one-time drop in costs, but the rate of medical inflation would be unchanged.

Costs are high here for two reasons.

1. The US is where the vast majority of research and innovation take place. That is costly. It takes place here because 55% of health care cost is borne privately (gov't programs mae up 45%). You just do not get the level of R&D in other nations as we have here becuase there is no $$ for it. People complain that the pay $1 for a Crestor pill that costs $.01 to make. This ignores the fact that the while that pill they took may have cost $.01, the FIRST Crestor pill cost $100 million.

2. In the US, we spend FAR greater amounts on treating people with advanced disease and illness. 97% of our HC $$'s go to treating 50% of our population. 25% goes to treating our sickest 1%. It's much more likely that people in the US have access to the most advanced and costly treatments than anywhere else.

This is why it costs so much here... Innovation and the willingness to make advanced/costly treatments available widely. Both occure because of private funding and our willingness (so far) to pay for it.

Until you hear real conversation about reducing innovation and making advanced treatment availablilty subject to cost/benefit type analysis, you won't have any basis for substaintial change.

Whether any of this is good/bad/etc,... is your call. It is pretty sad that despite spending more per acpita on HC than any other nation, we are no healthier than many nations.

KAiser non-profit has some good white papers. kff.org.

[quote=Danzig]they need to cap lawsuits. people need to quit treating accidents and such as winning the lottery.
i don't know how many people have already told us to get a lawyer because of my daughters wreck. no injury or anything. only thing i want is for the guy to be charged with reckless driving. what do i need a lawyer for?[/QUOTE]


Soliciting.

People also expect to get all their health care paid for.

What happened to the shared risk idea?

You know, like other types of insurance where one eats most of the cost
in order to have the assurance that if something catastrophic
occurs, it will be covered.
I know I have paid a lot more into health insurance than I have used. I thought this was the basic idea. Most people would pay more in to cover the high blasts that come from something like getting opened up in a hospital
operating room.

STS is right. We spend an enormous amount of money on the elderly.
And it is most likely at the expense of the young. The young ones
must be taken care of. If they are not, they will become life long money
drains for a country or insurance company (who would most likely just
drop them anyway).
We also spend a large amount of money on research of fairly rare disorders, instead of taking care of the mundane widespread disorders that are more common and costly.

Every celebrity seems to have their pet disorder that needs to be funded because they have a family member that experiences the disorder. I feel sorry for them, but what about the poor kid who is healthy to start with
but gets sick because of lack of basic health care and lack of family knowlege on how to take care of kids. These costs are enormous.