Wayne SW/MO Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The average cost per student is somewhere around $9500/year. The average cost of a hospitalization per person is around $15000/year. The reason healthcare doesn't worth locally, like schools- is partly because healthcare is simply more expensive than schools. If you think managing a national health program is confusing, imagine 114 independently operating healthcare systems- just in Missouri. If you were in a wreck on vacation out of state, does your local health plan cover that? A local system ignores discrepancies in the health of populations and availability of health services (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/missouri/2013/rankings/outcomes/overall/by-rank) Many outstate counties have lower populations, higher obesity rates, higher smoking rates, higher rates of physical inactivity, higher unemployment, higher rates of uninsured, higher poverty rates, higher median age, and less access to healthy food. You can be the healthiest person in Carter County, but because the population's lower, the risks are higher, and the doctors are fewer, you'll be paying more money for less service than an unhealthy person in Boone County. And private insurers have little incentive to invest in low-income, high risk folks outstate when they can invest in healthier, wealthier, younger people in urban areas. Local governments already have trouble attracting enough medical providers for their residents. They already have problems implementing health and nutrition programs like WIC. They already have problems dealing with changing demographics- I'm not sure how making healthcare a matter for local government resolves the issues which are currently outstanding. You may not want your healthcare administered by Barack Obama- I'm not sure things would be better administered by Barney Fife. I'm just not sure many local governments have the talent pool necessary to run health or insurance programs. Example- one of the local (county) health department administrators has an Associate's in Social Service, from the local community college. He wasn't hired because of his stellar resume', he was hired because of who he knew- local governments are no more immune to abuse than federal. I don't think his education and experience qualifies him to run a local/regional health insurance program, and I think many places would have a tough time attracting enough talented or qualified people to make local healthcare networks functional, effective, and affordable. Spoondog while some of your points are certainly valid, but how do they differ from state or national? If that was a big concern in the US legislature why do the not allow insurance companies to pool across state lines? I'm just not sure many local governments have the talent pool necessary to run health or insurance programs Given the amount of time the administration has had in developing a web site, not to mention the millions spent advertising the start, the failure in the start is monumental. Justin my wife worked ER's and so has my son and what you say is absolutely true, up to a point because you left out adults with a headache. But here's where I think the flaw lies in sending these same people to the doctors office. The doctors don't have the resources to absorb these people and they will retaliate, and the retaliation will affect everyone. I would be afraid that rural doctors will simply retire or move to areas where they can work for the hospital. You would have a hard time believing how many people ER's have seen for headaches where people said they came in to avoid having to buy a whole bottle of Advil they won't use up! I've heard about that many times. I still contend that while the nations health care needed reform, it wasn't done intelligently because they not only didn't have the time or willingness to get professional input, according to Pelosi the supporter didn't know what they were supporting. Are you going to keep that lower insurance rate you liked so well earlier thanks to the ACA? Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
1969Larson Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The average cost per student is somewhere around $9500/year. The average cost of a hospitalization per person is around $15000/year. The reason healthcare doesn't worth locally, like schools- is partly because healthcare is simply more expensive than schools. If you think managing a national health program is confusing, imagine 114 independently operating healthcare systems- just in Missouri. If you were in a wreck on vacation out of state, does your local health plan cover that? A local system ignores discrepancies in the health of populations and availability of health services (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/missouri/2013/rankings/outcomes/overall/by-rank) Many outstate counties have lower populations, higher obesity rates, higher smoking rates, higher rates of physical inactivity, higher unemployment, higher rates of uninsured, higher poverty rates, higher median age, and less access to healthy food. You can be the healthiest person in Carter County, but because the population's lower, the risks are higher, and the doctors are fewer, you'll be paying more money for less service than an unhealthy person in Boone County. And private insurers have little incentive to invest in low-income, high risk folks outstate when they can invest in healthier, wealthier, younger people in urban areas. Local governments already have trouble attracting enough medical providers for their residents. They already have problems implementing health and nutrition programs like WIC. They already have problems dealing with changing demographics- I'm not sure how making healthcare a matter for local government resolves the issues which are currently outstanding. You may not want your healthcare administered by Barack Obama- I'm not sure things would be better administered by Barney Fife. I'm just not sure many local governments have the talent pool necessary to run health or insurance programs. Example- one of the local (county) health department administrators has an Associate's in Social Service, from the local community college. He wasn't hired because of his stellar resume', he was hired because of who he knew- local governments are no more immune to abuse than federal. I don't think his education and experience qualifies him to run a local/regional health insurance program, and I think many places would have a tough time attracting enough talented or qualified people to make local healthcare networks functional, effective, and affordable. Well, do the math. At $9500 per student, with 15,000 students in the district, that is $142 million dollars. You could pay for 9500 hospitilazations at $15k each with that amound of money! If people don't like the healthcare in their area, you know what they could do? MOVE! People buy homes to be in good school districts. Property values reflect how good a school district is. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Key word being pursuit. It doesn't say "Premium Healthcare, Liberty, and Guaranteed Happiness." Earn it, man.
Wayne SW/MO Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I don't think there is anything on earth that will convince healthy young single adults that they need to pay out big bucks for health insurance. It ain't gonna happen. how many on here believe they would have if the situation existed 30, 40 50 years ago? There is very little that the feds are better at than the states in most instances. The only reason they grabbed control was through the questionable Supreme Court decision on interstate commerce. The founding fathers intended the federal government to be mediator and the court decided it meant regulation in all phases. The interstate system was built as a defense project and not a federal government responsibility because of the separation. It shows how much has changed philosophically in 60 years. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Guest Brian B. Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 I understand the concern, but I don't think you're giving youth enough credit. Obama won 2/3ds of the youth vote in 2012, and his position on healthcare was pretty unambiguous. I can't imagine all those folks voted for him unaware of his views. The ACA allows the nation's youth to stay on their parent's plan until they're 26- they're covered under their young & dumb stage, and if they're too dense to see the value of healthcare once they turn 27, I don't have any sympathy for them. But even if yours was the case, I'd argue paying something for healthcare is better than paying nothing for healthcare. If they have to pay a percentage of their income to use health services, I'd prefer that to the free-ride situation now. Yeah I'm sure the either under-employed, --- or fully unemployed youth will line up to pay something they don't HAVE to rather than spend that money. On beer or chasing tail... Makes perfect sense!
Root Admin Phil Lilley Posted October 8, 2013 Root Admin Posted October 8, 2013 Deleted one post - this has headed way off course although I've learned some things about healthcare as well as some interesting personal stories. I think we can have a civil conversation about this - I really do. Who knows- we might even solve the problem with good constructive conversations. Just stay off the personal issues- take them to personal messages if you have to get personal. This topic is close.
Recommended Posts