It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cat Out of Bag: The Nonpartisan Healthcare Plan is Kerry/Edwards

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Preserved thread and initial post for discussion, but changed title from "let's discuss nonpartisan compromise for healthcare."

Few takers. RANT sad.
Few want to debate ISSUES, without names. Thanks to those that made effort.


###

Assuming you're like most Americans and think something needs to be done about the rising cost of healthcare...what?

If you think nothing, good enough. Say so and move on please. You're not helping anybody.

If you're willing to discuss the issue, please avoid the standard mischaracterizations of any existing candidate's proposals. In fact, let's not even bring them up. For the record I'm a Southern Democrat, and not that liberal (believe it or not). While my ancestors did relish in the killing of Hatfields (snark), nothing probably gave them more satisfaction than driving back the invading Imperialists from Taxachusetts (when they were still known as Republicans).

But no matter who wins the White House, I'm hoping all elected officials come together and compromise on something. Not forcing any big government socialist plan, and not ignoring the free market pharmaceutical and HMO run disaster currently in bed with government and spiraling out of control.

I'm partial to some compromise. Any compromise, as it's a serious problem affecting America and Americans in increasing numbers. People are the nation's greatest resource... Indeed, the very backbone of our infrastructure, defense, and economy as a whole.

So what can we agree needs to be done?

I've picked up a few points being made across a number of other discussions including some being made by both candidates that I happen to support and don't consider too extreme one way or the other. The effort here is to put together what we may consider a hybrid plan, or acceptable nonpartisan healthcare resolution.

Who's with me, or wants changes, or wants to add their own?

Here's what I've got so far...

Number one: I'd like to see more middle class tax cuts given the impact the rising cost of healthcare has had on us. A full fifth of our decreasing income is going to healthcare now. But many of us keep getting catastrophically sicker and costing America more in time and money as families fall off the radar and lose insurance for even simple check ups and preventative medicine.

Number two: Though I'd oppose any government run healthcare plan, I wouldn't mind some small direct subsidies for private insurance as encouragement to the most at risk Americans... families with dependents. Of course, we subsidize important resources all the time. From farming to transportation, it's essential to have a healthy infrastructure. Small targeted subsidies are good in conjunction with tax cuts because they only go to private health insurance companies. Not Best Buy for a new large screen TV or Disney for a vacation or, to be perfectly blunt, your neighborhood crack dealer. You don't take advantage of it, you don't get it. It's a win-win for capitalism via increasing subscribers of private medicine and encouraging responsibilty in families more than tax cuts alone. Cut the premiums without cutting insurance profits, and reduce the cost of government intervention in the long run by encouraging ownership and responsibility in one's own healthcare decisions. It's like a targeted tax rebate you just happen to get every year that specifically defrays most families main out of pocket necessity.

Number three: All the broad tax cuts to help and targeted subsidies to encourage responsibility in the world still mean nothing if providers aren't held accountable. Some form of a patients bill of right's has been tossed around by both parties forever. Let's pass one.

Number four: The practice of defensive medicine is both a good and bad thing. I like the results... Better, safer health care. But not the cost resulting from more paperwork and physician fear of malpractice. I'd compromise on saying a review of defensive measures is warranted including an effort to promote technology to expedite healthcare into the 21st century and some reasonable caps and standardization on litigation. But I'm not willing to outlaw reasonable recourse in whole or part as some proponents of liability reform are eager to do. Again, compromise.

And number five: Finally do something about pharmaceutical parity on costs for the same American made drugs sold in America and everywhere else. There's no good reason for Americans to front the brunt of research costs and advertising expenditures other countries stricter regulations don't allow. For one thing, I'm not sure why prescription medicines are allowed to be advertised at all. It's a huge chunk of what you ultimately pay when buying direct American, and promotes the overuse and overmedication and overvisitation of your doctor to ask if the purple pill is right for you. This rasies everyone's insurance ultimately on top of drug costs, and should be reviewed. Also the allowance for reimportation of safe American drugs is essential, even if merely a warning shot across the bow of American pharmaceuticals that if they're going to be global multinationals, don't screw us with the bill. I think reimportation is reasonably supported at the bipartisan level, so it shouldn't be a problem.

How's that for fair? Five simple things we can do and agree on from a nonpartisan perspective to at least move us in the right direction, if not solve most of America's healthcare problems. No big government plans. No Federal oversight. And most importantly it's something. It's not pretending everything's A-OK as it's headed, which is for disaster.

Thoughts?

Leave Bush and Kerry out of the discussion if we can. But what do you think overall? Let's make it easy and use numbers from the list. Fix what's broke. Agree or disagree with each point and tell why. Also add whatever you'd like.

We'll fix this problem in no time.


[edit on 16-10-2004 by RANT]

[edit on 17-10-2004 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
If a REAL debate were actually held between the front-runners maybe this would be the outcome?

Looks good RANT but one more thing...

The cost of prescription drugs is kept high mainly due to patents that give market monopoly. 20 years is supposed to be the maximum but there is this loophole called "Patent Term Extensions". This loophole allows them to go over the 20 year maximum. This should be changed as well in my opinion and would drive down the price of drugs (thanks to generics) that have been on the market for a while.

I know we're not supposed to mention parties but both parties talked about bringing generics to market sooner, so this compromise is already agreed upon.

What do you think?



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This is what we need. I'm obviously no expert and the ideas off the top of my head are FAR from exhaustive.

I LOVE IT!

Number six:

Originally posted by Gools
The cost of prescription drugs is kept high mainly due to patents that give market monopoly. 20 years is supposed to be the maximum but there is this loophole called "Patent Term Extensions". This loophole allows them to go over the 20 year maximum. This should be changed as well in my opinion and would drive down the price of drugs (thanks to generics) that have been on the market for a while.


I'll update a main list when we have a few more.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Sad to say, but we need socialized healthcare. Completely requiring from, and administered to the citizenry of the United States by the government, because healthcare does not work in a capitalist system. Capitalism requires that market forces can find a supply demand acceptable price point for the good/service. In healthcare ultimately your life is the item for which you need to affix that price point. If you can tell me what you are *willing* to spend to save your (or your child's) life, I can tell you how to run a healthcare system in the capitalist framework. Because people will be willing to pay any price, there are no true market force controls. Hence the rising cost of healthcare, anything at any price will be tried when life is at stake, any debt will be assumed, any hardship for you or your country (who ultimately foots these debts if unpaid) is better then the alternative. Nobody is willing to die rather then go into debt; nobody is willing to die when they might be saved.

Unfortunately, the only way to get medical care for the truly sick is amortize the insurance risk against the largest group possible, and this group given the size of the inform/ill in the United States would have to be the whole populace. You will have to use another human instinct (the avoidance of pain i.e. sickness) to hope that the system cannot be gamed much. This would require very strict controls on non-physical, non-terminal ailments and the assistance must be purely medical, not lifestyle (i.e. disability payments).

Then and only then, can we manage healthcare. Pulling it out of its mistaken association with capitalism and strictly controlling its application. Given my long standing political point of view, I am upset that this is the only logical conclusion I can reach. But alas, here we are.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer
Sad to say, but we need socialized healthcare. Completely requiring from, and administered to the citizenry of the United States by the government, because healthcare does not work in a capitalist system. Capitalism requires that market forces can find a supply demand acceptable price point for the good/service...


*snipped the rest*

I do understand where you're coming from Mainer and the rest of your points, and also the points Kerry and other liberals (like myself) make about those pitfalls of for-profit medicine. I do think it's corrupt, and on some levels immoral....

But I'm going for compromise if possible. That's cool if you don't see it happening though. I'm looking for all voices to add to the debate.


But we are a capitalist society overall, with only minor "compassionate" socialist leanings in education and healthcare already. So this is nothing new, just a different approach I've been reading alot about that candidates should consider.

It's one small step in the right direction you seek via Point two, that most conservatives would also find a step in the right direction via Point one. The compromise is the combination of Points one & two presented here.

Basically it's all just a tax cut/rebate of your own money, but the small portion in Point two actually promotes responsibility by only subsidizing your insurance choice. It gets people off welfare programs, relieves the burden on Health & Human Services and encourages struggling people to choose a private insurance/healthcare provider with a little help. It's total choice and individual responsibility with a minor government incentive. That's it.

Maybe I'm too conservative on this issue, and you may not agree with even Point one, but I like tax cuts for working people. I just want the small caveat of point two that you get even more of your tax money back for being a responsible citizen and provider for your family.

Everybody wins! Even healthcare providers and insurance!



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Sorry, I'll fix this later.

[edit on 10-16-2004 by Loki]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Number six:

Originally posted by Gools
The cost of prescription drugs is kept high mainly due to patents that give market monopoly. 20 years is supposed to be the maximum but there is this loophole called "Patent Term Extensions". This loophole allows them to go over the 20 year maximum. This should be changed as well in my opinion and would drive down the price of drugs (thanks to generics) that have been on the market for a while.



I'm hearing from the drug lobby now.


Patents protect profits for sure (as they are designed), but assist expensive research as well.

Regarding pharmco...


The patent begins while the drug is in the FDA evaluation phase, and may have anywhere from 3-10 years before FDA approval for use, this will only allow for 7-10 years before a drug becomes "free" (generic, it is de facto free). Each drug takes 500 million dollars plus to develop, only one out of ten (from the good companies, some ratios are worse) make it out of development phase and in pharmacies.


Basically, this may be one all Politicians talk about but can effectively do nothing. The FDA also makes drug patents a bit more complicated and costly than most.

But as for banning prescription drug advertsing, we've got soft support as a compromise.


[edit on 16-10-2004 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Its a good start, but as a health care insider (Registered nurse) I have my 2 cents on your proposal.



Number one: I'd like to see more middle class tax cuts given the impact the rising cost of healthcare has had on us. A full fifth of our decreasing income is going to healthcare now.


I always always support tax cuts. And the costs of health care are growing non stop. We recently (early this year) negotiated a contract with our hospital. We are a small independant union (2000 nurses) and all the union officers by our rules have to work as nurses at the hospital. That we also feel the impact of anything we negotiate. We held the line on a free health care plan. SOme other unions have not been so lucky (notably the Souther California grocery clerks went out for 60 days and ended up loosing this). What is my point? Corporate health care tax breaks are required as well. Take the burden off the corporations along with adding to middle class income should make everybody happy. If its cheaper to ensure your employees, then more employers will offer healthcare and take the burden off the state and federal systems (in theory).


Number two: Though I'd oppose any government run healthcare plan, I wouldn't mind some small direct subsidies for private insurance as encouragement to the most at risk Americans...

I would agree to this with caveats. Having dealt with my fair share of deadbeat drugged out parents, there needs to be strict limitations placed on these people. I am jaded somewhat as we see alot of them in the ICU setting. Moms on thier 5th and 6th kid simply have to stop. Be it Norplant or Depro. Some type of temporary cesation of thier ability to pop out kids. Why worry when the state picks up the tab. No flamming on this please. Its the way I see it. Your plan does have merit, but I would like to propose a situation similar to a medical savings account. people would have an account or even a MediCal (CA's aid program) card that is really only good at hospitals. No worries about it being taken at Best Buy etc.



Number three: All the broad tax cuts to help and targeted subsidies to encourage responsibility in the world still mean nothing if providers aren't held accountable. Some form of a patients bill of right's has been tossed around by both parties forever. Let's pass one.


Im not sure of what its like in other states, but CA already has one. Its posted in the front of every unit in every hospital I have been to. But the bill of rights has to be two ways. The patient needs to follow treatment regimes, The patient needs to make appointments etc etc.




Number four: The practice of defensive medicine is both a good and bad thing. I like the results... Better, safer health care. But not the cost resulting from more paperwork and physician fear of malpractice.


This is where you lose me a bit. The malpractice issue has gotten out of hand. Its not just the medical field mind you. I agree if someone willingly screws up, there has to be consequences. However, a kid with a massive cardiac defect dies post op, because they really never should have been alive in the first place, why should they be able to sue? Yet thats what happens time and time again. Adn the damages need to be realistic too.


And number five: Finally do something about pharmaceutical parity on costs for the same American made drugs sold in America and everywhere else. There's no good reason for Americans to front the brunt of research costs and advertising expenditures other countries stricter regulations don't allow.


No argument from me. on this one. I would prefer that the drugs be manufactured here to avoid any issue with poor handaling etc during transportation.

The last issue is going to piss a few people off. One of the biggest ways we are going to cut cost is by allowing people to die with dignity. Im not talking assisted suicide either (That has merit but it is off topic). Im talking about the futile preservation of life. Families will often demand that everything be done even though no hope is left. One aspect of this is the fact that they do not have to pick up the tab. I have seen little ones flogged for a week. Medical science is such that we can keep kids alive for a looooong time if you really go all out. To what end? Its the family right to do so, but the time has come to say enough is enough. Strict guideleins should exist to put an end to this life at all cost practice. There is more than a financial aspect here as well. The toll on the families that see this life strung out and the toll on the people providing the care as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its a good start, but as a health care insider (Registered nurse) I have my 2 cents on your proposal.


That's all it is... a start. And appreciate your input from the front lines very much.
As for any compromise on Points one - five (including four), the thing to remember is a fairly split House & Senate would have to debate and compromise on it anyway. So nobody should get screwed.

The additional issue you bring up...


The last issue is going to piss a few people off. One of the biggest ways we are going to cut cost is by allowing people to die with dignity. Im not talking assisted suicide either (That has merit but it is off topic). Im talking about the futile preservation of life. Families will often demand that everything be done even though no hope is left. One aspect of this is the fact that they do not have to pick up the tab. I have seen little ones flogged for a week. Medical science is such that we can keep kids alive for a looooong time if you really go all out. To what end? Its the family right to do so, but the time has come to say enough is enough. Strict guideleins should exist to put an end to this life at all cost practice. There is more than a financial aspect here as well. The toll on the families that see this life strung out and the toll on the people providing the care as well.


Is a good one. And it doesn't scare or piss me off (though it will some), but I've been witness to unnecessary heroic measures and the alternative myself. Id' support the option of some family decision leeway regarding how and where one dies, that could help. But I know your point about sick kids and unreasonable parents putting the bill on others is the real problem. Don't know how to fix that.

I'm a big supporter of Hospice type situations for the terminal, and government assistence of that low cost option to aid catastrophic insurance costs and excessive measures.

So basically, maybe we can't fix it, as it's hard to regulate what measures are too much. But we help the situation with some government assistance in catastrophic situations and with alternative options for terminal patients to not die slowly at the expense of everyone's insurance and a hospital's forced charity (bills that never get paid, except through rising costs to us).

We can work on that.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I agree with Mainer about socialized healthcare. Why are we the only industrialized nation without it? Canada has it, they're doing fine. Maybe after this generation dies out, will have more progressive thinkers run our government. Visionaries, like our founding fathers.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Can we please be specific? I sense I may be leaning more toward conservatives with this than liberals. Sorry if that's the case. Please keep in mind though, this is a compromise effort. And frankly, every point on the list is more than we currently have with what we've got.

No, it's not socialism, it's not even Hillarycare (whatever that was)... it's somewhere inbetween what we're being offered now. Even if I wanted more, I sure wouldn't turn any point on the list down.

I'd also welcome Libertarian, Nader, Green, etc. input as several points (like one and two) are compromises for them as well. And conservatives, we really need your input too. What could Republicans live with in your opinion? FredT has been most helpful there so far.


To make your yes, no's, hell no's, and maybe's (with caveats) easier, a bullet point list...

Number one: middle class tax cuts

Number two: small targeted direct subsidies for private insurance

Number three: a patients bill of right's

Number four: alleviate the practice of defensive medicine

~promote technology to expedite healthcare into the 21st century
~reasonable caps and standardization on litigation

And number five: pharmaceutical parity on costs

~allow drug reimportation from Canada
~possibly restrict prescription advertising

Open for discussion so far are also:

Six: how to get generics to marker faster/safer? Lower drug costs even more?

And Seven: some reasonable limits on overly heroic and expensive measures to prolong terminal life.

Your countrymen need compromise.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
But wouldn't this comprimise leave out big buisiness? Aren't they the ones who dictate to our politicians, how to provide our healthcare?

EDIT: I can't say the "B" word! Sounds like the last debate!


[edit on 16-10-2004 by curme]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I agree with Mainer about socialized healthcare. Why are we the only industrialized nation without it? Canada has it, they're doing fine.


Are they? Yes they have a government provided health care system. But it is limited in its scope. There are limits on the numbers of surguries done each year esp CABG's (Coronary artery bypass grafts). Id hate to be the guy that gets told, sorry weve done all we can this year, you will be managed medically.

I got quite an earfull on the system from one of our cardiac surgeons. he left Torontos Sick Childrens Hospita because of the limitations to his practice because of the health care system. He's the worlds leading expert or minimaly invasive robotic cardiac surgery and he up and left.

Nor IMHO are people going to be willing to pony up the added gas tax, and VAT to pay for the system. I am also skeptical that any administration (Rep, Dem, Lib) could push a system through and run it well. Case in point: Take a gander at the VA system. Its as close to a socialized medical system we have and its a disaster. Not that our present system is running like a swiss watch either.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I guess I might as well put a name on this plan so more people will be willing to look and debate it. It's too bad so few even open a "nonpartisan" ISSUE thread in Political Debate.

I'll update main thread title too.

Thanks to everyone that looked, gave it thought and commented on an unpartisan basis. That helps see where people's heads are at greatly.
Also thanks to anyone that U2U'ed knowing what it was, but held their tongue to not blow the effort.


It's the Kerry/Edwards Healthcare Plan. Nothing more. Nothing less. Always has been.

The reason it may seem so unrecognizable to some is two fold:

ONE~
Factcheck.org: Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan

Summary

A Bush ad claims Kerrys healthcare proposals would put "big government in charge" of medical decisions. In fact, Kerry's plan would leave 97% with the insurance they have now -- while up to 27 million who aren't insured would gain coverage.

Bush's claim turns out to be based on opinions from two conservative advocates whose predictions aren't supported by neutral experts.


TWO~
Factcheck.org: It's achieving "Liberal Goals" through "Conservative Means"

The nonpartisan Centrists.org found Kerrys health proposal to be "similar in many ways to a blueprint offered in July by Senate Republican leader Bill Frist," and concluded that Kerrys proposal tries to achieve liberal goals" mostly through "conservative means.


My own assessment of the situation here is if Kerry just bluntly said it's just a damn tax cut you ninnies, and one Bush won't give you at that, his own base would freak saying...wait, I want free government healthcare!?!

That's not what it is. Never was. Never claimed to be. It's increased ACCESS to healthcare FOR ALL VIA CONSERVATIVE MEANS... championed by others as well in nonpartisan efforts (like Frist).

What's Bush's problem? He's protecting the top 2% tax cut. That's it. He doesn't want to give the middle class more cuts, like moderates and John Kerry do.

Well here's the point by point match up from Kerry's language that by design must appeal to liberals, but also get the message out to moderates and conservatives that can get past Bush's mischaracterizations and zealot protection of top tier tax cuts...

Number one:
Cut Middle-Class Taxes to Raise Middle-Class Incomes

John Kerry Will Cut Taxes for 98 Percent of American Families and 99 Percent of Businesses. In addition, he will:

Propose At Least $250 Billion In Tax Cuts For Health Care, Child Care, and Education - Without Increasing the Deficit By One Dime. As president, John Kerry will close corporate tax loopholes and use some of the money gained from repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - families making over $200,000 a year - to pay for tax credits without increasing the deficit by one dime. The Kerry-Edwards tax cuts include:

A tax credit on up to $4,000 of college tuition
A tax credit to help small businesses and vulnerable workers pay for health care and buy into John Kerry's new Congressional Health Plan.
A tax credit on $5,000 of child care expenses
Create a New Jobs Tax Credit. Research has demonstrated that new jobs tax credits increase employment. The Kerry-Edwards New Jobs Tax Credit will cover an employer's share of payroll taxes for net new jobs created in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses. The credit will be available in 2005 and 2006. For example: a medium-sized manufacturing company employs 1,000 workers. If this company hires an additional 100 employees at $40,000 each - bringing the total number of employees to 1,100 - it would receive a tax cut of 3,060 per worker, or $306,000 total. This would roughly offset the additional cost of health care premiums, which have risen about $2,700 under President Bush.


Number two: Cut Your Premiums

John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses. (Combination of direct subsidies to promote choice and options and moving some catastrophic situations off employer private insurance to protect businesses and lower premiums overall.)



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Rant, I thought something smelled with your post
That being said, While I added my pointers and thoughts to your stated goals for reforming healthcare, naturally the Bush plan is surperior IMHO.

(This is lifted from my post in the Campaign 2004 forum, so please forgive me)
 


One of the biggest issues facing America in the decades to come is ongoing crisis that is Health Care. The ability to care for the sick and elderly is the cornerstone of any civilization. Health care as it exists today is heading for a major breakdown. Much like social security, it is doomed to eventually collapse under the weight of increasing costs and obligations. The Bush platform not only address these problems here and now, it sets the foundation for the system to stay health for years.

During the previous four years the administration has successfully championed Health Savings Accounts, Medicare Prescription Benefit, Expanded and Opened Community Health Centers, Strengthen Medicaid, and provided a Health Insurance Tax Credit.

In order to build on these accomplishments the administration has proposed to do the following.



Medical Liability Reform. The President proposes to address the skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums through national adoption of proven minimum standards to make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and timely. A more fair, predictable and timely medical liability process speeds compensation to patients, reduces health care costs, and improves access and quality of health care.


This is one of the most important aspects of the overall plan. The liability system has become more and more burdensome for health care corporations. As a health care professional I can see the impacts of this directly. The amount of paperwork that is generated on each patient because of the fear of liability is staggering. During a 12 hour shift in the ICU, I can generate up to 20 pieces of paper just for one patient. The bulk of which have no direct impact on patient care. However, the hospital deems them necessary to protect itself from potential liability. Another example is the composition of the hospital staff. At our facility, the number of Risk Management, Utilization Review, Management, Compliance staff actual exceed the number of Registered Nurses. Not only are the hospitals burdened with excessive litigation, the culture of paranoia is also contributing to gross levels of inefficiency. Patients who a few years ago may have gotten an ace wrap for a sprain now have to undergo MRIs CT and the like because the Doctors are covering themselves in case they get sued. At some point, surgeons will pass on high risk surgeries out of liability fears.



Association Health Plans (AHPs). The President supports legislation that enables small employers to pool together in order to offer health insurance options to their employees by giving small businesses the same purchasing power that large employers and unions have. CBO estimates that by 2008, 7.5 million people would obtain health insurance through AHPs and 600,000 would be newly insured


This is similar to the plan that the Clinton Administration proposed in 1992. The economies of scale would allow small businesses (the backbone of our economy) the ability to offer healthcare to all of their employees. They could do this because they would not be overly burdened by the cost of purchasing individual plans. Many small businesses do not offer employees health care because of its costs. By reducing the burden, more people who work but have no coverage would come into the fold.



Refundable Tax Credit. The President proposes a refundable tax credit that will make health insurance more affordable to millions of Americans who do not have employer-provided insurance or public insurance. The Treasury Department estimates that the tax credit will extend insurance to 4.5 million Americans.


For those that do not have health care, they at least would be able to receive relief through a tax credit of their health care premiums. T



Health Information Technology. The President proposes to use modern health information technology to achieve high-quality care, reduce preventable medical errors, and reduce costs. President Bushs FY05 Budget request doubles the amount of funding for demonstration projects for broader adoption of health IT systems in communities and states to $100 million. The President announced a goal that most Americans have personal electronic health records within the next ten years, and is working to make sure the federal government is fostering the adoption of these technologies.


The healthcare system will benefit tremendously from the Bush administration proposals. It will allow for efficient record keeping and reduce paperwork. More importantly it would allow health care facilities up to date information on the patients health history and previous problems. This alone would improve outcomes by allowing a collation of data, allowing rapid diagnosis and put an end to procedure duplication.


By adding reforms to the system, rather that over regulating it, the Bush plan helps to fix the system without the specter of government regulation. It addresses the liability issue, it provides for an increase of coverage of the uninsured, and most importantly it helps reduce costs.

While President Bush has a few health care skeletons, he by far is the more balance candidate in regards to reform in this area. Kerry on the other hand (when he has found time to actually vote) has consistently opposed healthcare reform, medicare funding, Medical savings accounts, tax credits to small businesses to help provide health care, aid for state medicaid programs, and medical liability reforms. The Bush plan presents a concrete reform that will build on the past efforts and produce savings by improving efficiency, reforming liability, and a concrete plan to help small businesses provide health care to all of its workers. Kerrys proposal is basically to tweak the status quo, and raise taxes to pay for it. Some projections put the Kerry plan at $895 Billion Over 10 Years and not even be able to cover everybody. (Kenneth E. Thorpe, An Overview And Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates Health Care Reform Proposals)



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   


Bottom line: If anyone in the middle class wants another tax cut. You've got two options.

John Kerry or Mike Badnarik.

Bush will not give any more relief to the middle class. Not in taxes, not in healthcare. He's now in 100% defense mode for his "base" ~ the top 2%.

Kerry/Edwards, and frankly most Democrats I know are God fearing middle class capitalist pigs that just want a damn tax cut and more parity in healthcare and drug pricing.


Hmmm really now lets see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
POLITICS: Middle-Class Tax Cuts Extension Approved

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Typical: Kerry and Edwards Miss Vote on Middle Class Tax Break Extension


Seems to me the middle class think is lip service or a catchy sound bite. In fact on prominant Dem in the middle of a tight race said he would vote on it and implied it was due to the tightness of the race he was in, not some moral convicition against it. More to the point he also implied that he might reconsider it after the election. Talk about a political whore...



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
But you're saying the President's entire plan is talking about everything he did the past four years that got us to this place, plus four things John Kerry supports. Good. Glad we're close.

And those Bush "subsidies" via refundable tax credits is another step in the right direction, but what about middle class tax cuts?

Why won't Bush agree there (for both healthcare and more cash in consumers hands)? That affects everything in the economy?

Not to mention his past four years of blocking the Patients' Bill of Rights and Reimportation of Drugs from Canada don't exactly amount to the "superior plan" you describe. Why aren't they on his list?

Kerry supports everything on your list. Plus middle class tax cuts, a patient's bill of rights and cheaper drugs through measures like reimportation.

You can't call Bush' plan superior. It's deficient. And it's anti-middle class.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And those Bush "subsidies" via refundable tax credits is another step in the right direction, but what about middle class tax cuts?


Ahem: www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, how are you going to pay for the Kerry plan?

And why yet again Rant, is it just you and me going back and forth? We need couples counseling



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT


Bottom line: If anyone in the middle class wants another tax cut. You've got two options.

John Kerry or Mike Badnarik.

Bush will not give any more relief to the middle class. Not in taxes, not in healthcare. He's now in 100% defense mode for his "base" ~ the top 2%.

Kerry/Edwards, and frankly most Democrats I know are God fearing middle class capitalist pigs that just want a damn tax cut and more parity in healthcare and drug pricing.


Hmmm really now lets see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
POLITICS: Middle-Class Tax Cuts Extension Approved

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Typical: Kerry and Edwards Miss Vote on Middle Class Tax Break Extension


Seems to me the middle class think is lip service or a catchy sound bite. In fact on prominant Dem in the middle of a tight race said he would vote on it and implied it was due to the tightness of the race he was in, not some moral convicition against it. More to the point he also implied that he might reconsider it after the election. Talk about a political whore...



You already know why ya hack.
The candidates issued statements from the road they supported the middle class tax extentions never in any danger of not passing given near unanimous support, but not the corporate loopholes Republicans padded in.

And Kerry/Edwards want MORE middle class tax cuts. For 98% of Americans and 99% of Business. Those protect JOBS.

BUSH DOES NOT. Bush is against new tax cuts so he can protect his gift to top earners. It's that simple. Everybody supported the extension of existing MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. Not the issue. What about more?

You don't want a tax cut FredT? Since when?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
BTW, how are you going to pay for the Kerry plan?


Seen quite a few non partisan sites quote both candidates entire budgets as about equal cost. About $1.3 trillion over ten years. The difference is who benefits more? The rich or middle class.

How do we pay? How does Bush pay? Who cares?


No, it's the same argument on both sides. Um, economy will improve and so will the deficit.



And why yet again Rant, is it just you and me going back and forth? We need couples counseling



I know. Just bored.
We'll stop.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by RANT]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join