Where is everyone #5

Me an Jr fittin to take a nap. He is a lil mad bout the whole ice cream deal

 

Ya let's talk about Tonka and the likes

Hey @OLDSKOOLERnWV . You have any pics of cool toys?

 

Done deal.

 

I hope none or you are heading northbound from below roanoke today.

Traffic looked pretty horrible to begin with. Until a camper and some 4 wheelers got together just below the scale. Front of the camper came plum off. Looked like 3 more accordian accidents in its wake. Atleast 10 miles parked.

 

Any particular kind of toys....?

 

This is a long post and not intended to be argumentative or combative. Please just skip past it if uninterested in the topic, but I feel that constantly pointing fingers at one side or the other without offering possible compromise serves no purpose, so here goes.


On the subject of health care:

In my view, which despite how I try will contain bias, I see it as follows:

One political party believes in "single payer" healthcare. This in and of itself shows political gamesmanship in coining the phrase "single payer". Say what it is - government provided (i.e. EVERYBODY who pays taxes pays for it). Is that the proper solution? To many around the world it is. Western European countries seem to make it work well for them, and at least some of our Canadian friends like it but make no mistake, it is anything but free.

The other major party touts "privatized" healthcare, and yet they seem incapable as a whole of coming up with a viable solution with which the majority of the party agrees upon, and despite the opinions that are vocalized in the media they are incapable of removing the entire process from the grips of government, and perhaps justifiable so.

Some feel that the entire world benefits from our expensive healthcare in that the research provided by our expensive system is then shared with the world at a much lower cost. To some extent this must be true but we do not hold the monopoly on medical breakthroughs.

Solutions:

There are many many reasons I am sure why this won't work, but it is the only thing that makes sense to me short of adopting government run healthcare, which I believe would not be in the best interest of the United States.

1) Provide a safety net of some sort for those on the economic end of our society that cannot afford basic healthcare. Personally I would even support a MODEST payroll deduction to fund this level of basic care, say less than 5%. Should it be administered via Medicaid or some other vehicle probably doesn't much matter. This certainly should be preferable to the system of folks without any healthcare going to county or state funded hospital emergency rooms for flu symptoms or the common cold, as well as being agreeable to those who feel that healthcare should be provided to all.

2) In exchange for #1, make another payroll deduction that requires a small portion of ones income to go to a Healthcare Savings Plan. This money would be much like a 401K in that it remains OUT of the possession of the government. Individual states should be able to oversee the administration of these accounts.

3 The funds within the Healthcare Savings Plan would be pre-tax.

4 There would likely need to be a cap on how much could be contributed each year, similar to an IRA, in an attempt to prevent abuse.

5 Funds in this account would be used for all maintenance type expenses in an attempt to save "insurance" for catastrophic, or at least more expensive procedures.

6 When one dies, the remainder of that person's account can be bequeathed to their heirs Healthcare Savings account tax free.

I believe that the result of such a program would allow for a 90 yr. old person who could use a hip replacement the choice as to whether or not they feel it would be worth it, or if they prefer to pass the money required for the procedure on to their heirs instead.

I believe that this would subject providers to direct competition from the end user (us, the patients) as we would then negotiate for services just like any other business and would remove the insurance company layer from the equation on day to day needs.

Family practitioners could lower their price without cutting into their income simply by eliminating the need for an entire medical billing and coding staff, and the need to have to wait 120 days or more to actually be paid for their services. From the perspective of a small business person, cash flow and the cost of money can be one of the most crippling aspects of running a small business, which every doctor's office should be.

I am not knowledgeable enough to address tort claims with any degree of intelligence, but the opportunity seems to exist to reform this in some manner, further reducing the overhead that a doctor must pay.

Finally, after perhaps as few as three generations, families might be able to self-insure all but the very most catastrophic expenditures, which would further reduce the cost of healthcare and improve the quality by virtue of competition and supply and demand. I believe there should still be government oversight similar in scope to what a restaurant operator, plumber, electrician etc. has to comply with, but the administration of the healthcare experience could be greatly streamlined.

I could go on and on, and I am sure there are huge flaws in my thought process, but this has been an attempt to provide food for thought, while trying to keep it as apolitical as possible. All of these suggestions have been thought up by others and none are my own, but in my mind this, while still being far from perfect, is a process that could provide the very best healthcare in the world while making it more affordable to everyone. There are no doubt aspects of this plan that folks on each side of the political isle abhor, but also aspects that are favorable.

 

@MACK E-6 , please remove this if you feel it is too political. I tried to avoid the political aspects as much as I could.

 

Pics?

 

Ask him if he had an Evil Knieval stunt cycle.