Top Three Health Care Policy Proposals
Top Three Health Care Policy Proposals – One year after the passage of major health care legislation, Harvard economist Jeff Miron says more reform is still needed. Dr. Miron gives his top 3 policy …
The Fossils Fuel War: The Rise of the Unconventionals
Filed under: drug abuse treatment cost analysis program
Only a few years ago governments, corporations, and energy analysts were fixated on the problem of “the end of cheap oil” or “peak oil,” pointing to growing shortages of conventional crude oil due to the depletion of known reserves. …. The fact that …
Read more on International Debt Observatory
House Democrats: Tea Party Has Officially Overthrown GOP Leaders
Filed under: drug abuse treatment cost analysis program
Democrats are likely to overwhelmingly vote against the House GOP's continuing resolution, which would strip the Affordable Care Act of funding, lock in government spending at sequester levels and gut the Children's Health Insurance Program. …. the …
Read more on Huffington Post
Counterfeit Automotive Products
Filed under: drug abuse treatment cost analysis program
If you pay any attention to the “outside world,” you may have occasionally seen mainstream media reports of counterfeit or knock-off fashions, watches, and purses; bootleg movie DVDs and music CDs; and nonauthentic brand-name software and computer …
Read more on Hot Rod Magazine
25 Responses to Top Three Health Care Policy Proposals
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m sorry, but these proposals seem insane.
First of all, how does? cutting all the insurance programs can provide insurance to more people?
Secondly, you didn’t explain how less regulation leads to cheaper and better healthcare.
And finally, without any regulation healthcare providers will be free to set any prices they want on their services. It’s already been monopolized to the point that all the medicine and procedures are overpriced by 300% to 400% in US, some – even more.
I am very offended by you being very offended. Not really… but the point is that being offended is a choice.
Surgery and other medical procedures can become quite expensive. The materials and training required to perform many surgeries are limited in supply.
A doctor is a? person trying to make a living. You do NOT have a right to his time and efforts any more than you have a right to any other persons time and efforts. Consequently the economic protection is also not a valid right.
We have to throw away the notion that not starving to? death is a right. If we take that approach we are led inevitably to thinking that we give everybody whatever food they want, under all circumstances, without them having to pay for it. Which means everyone will be having lobster dinners every night, utterly bankrupting the US economy.
That is an entitlement that implies a duty to provide on a surgeon. Does a surgeon have a right to not deliver the service in this system? Or is the duty to provide on the hospital? What if there? is not enough capacity in the hospital to provide for all the demand that the hospital is legally obliged to provide service for.
I am very offended by your diction describing surgeries as “fancy” and other adjatives like that. Every citizen should have the right to see a doctor and be? economically protected if they can’t afford it
The problem with treating healthcare as a right is the same as that of treating any product or service as a right. Specifically, it obligates others to your wants. It’s a claim of ownership, by one? person, over the efforts of others. Now you know why political hustlers LOVE it. (Socialists give it the happy-sounding name of “positive rights”.) Its toxicity is far broader economics. Everywhere its adopted, civilization withers and dies.
I am from the UK and despite what? everyone says,our healthcare sucks.I always hear people say “At least its free”,but so’s grass,but you wouldn’t point it out to a kid who’s forgotten his lunch money…
What bankruptcy??
Healthcare costs going up. Scenario: 5 people go to the hospital. 1 has Medicaid (which pays only 20% of the cost) and the other 4 have private insurance. The remaining cost of the one with Medicaid gets passed to the other 4 people by increasing the costs. More and more people lose their insurance, prices go up to cover the costs.. sad part? is private insurance companies can’t prove this. (BTW I work in Healthcare). And now we want to make it mandatory?
@0:38 that is not true, most people do not abuse the? NHS, I live in the uk and that is not the case, it just means we don’t go into debt when we have a broken bone
Unless of course you get hit by a? car or diagnosed with a congenital disorder or get cancer or Parkinson’s, et al.
“Regarding those who lose their health to one illness, they should have bought private health insurance if they value the longevity of their life more than its quality”
Except there are two major problems with that:
a) most people arnt particularly bright.
b) wealth distributions may mean it isnt feasible for these people to pay.
It? turns out passing laws to mitigate these factors is easier than letting them cause the collapse of society 🙂
“The problem with regarding? 6.7 billion people as one entity is who makes the decisions. ”
– well you could become some kind of constitutional republic with representational democracy… 😀
“You should understand that governments don’t? own anything. Governments can only take from its tax payers. Ultimately, US citizens are paying for their healthcare through theft…”
– healthcare isnt anymore inflation/theft than any other public service: police, fire departments .etc
Your opposition to it seems to be based on shortsighted libertarian ideals that refuse to acknowledge that society necessitates compromise between individual choice and what is required? for social stability.
“Not all the greatest advancements in the world were not made in the? US. Though many were, they were possible in an environment of relatively limited government? interventions”
– you havnt provided evidence that limited government involvement had any bearing whatsoever, also if you tried to you’d need to explain why so many innovations currently come from countries with increased government involvement like Japan.
Correlation-causation fallacy much.
“Under that system everyone demands tons…”
– yes, because going to the doctors is fun.
“it will only bankrupt the healthcare system”
– and yet it has proven feasible in a multitude of other countries who are also enjoying better healthcare and healthcare standards
“cant even come close to affording the healthcare policies we have”
– that’s? because your currently dont help people until they are permanently damage which screws your economy (something public healthcare would help fix)
You seem to paint the capitalistic brush that working as individuals does not benefit society as a? whole. There’s a vast difference between how things are done but does not mean the end goal is not the same.
Being a martyr and hiding behind fallacies is exactly why people say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Taking on the challenges of society does not mean stealing peoples money and telling them what to do with it. Entrepreneurs are the providers of solutions, not politicians.
Before you go on about the benefits of “creative progress” through taxation and collectivism, look at nearly every Canadian or American native reserve restricting property rights. When everyone owns something, nobody owns anything nor chooses to take more personal responsibility.
Just as? much as you are responsible for your neighbour, you rely on them to take care of you. Considering most people steal or do things under the premise “I’m only one person”, that widespread attitude is detrimenta
Lawsuits are estimated to be about 4-5% of total healthcare costs but for sure. They do not account for the cultural change, estimation of excessive testing (or even value in testing), and overbearing issue of lawyers prospering from it. The fact that someone can sue and not even have to apologize for being wrong is mind boggling and goes beyond the right? of suing for fraud or malpractice in general.
HK is different in that it truly pursues freer markets. 60 years worth of progress to prove it
The? best healthcare system is good nutrition. Period.
Maybe you should tax excess? calories too.
Not all the greatest advancements in the world were not made in the US. Though many were, they were possible in an environment of relatively limited government interventions. Innovation and success has been fleeing the US since its progression towards socialistic policies. Btw, taking averages spending on education doesn’t mean a thing. Paying for a water park on my college campus? does not make me smarter.
You seem to imply the government produces something and has its own source of income. You should understand that governments? don’t own anything. Governments can only take from its tax payers. Ultimately, US citizens are paying for their healthcare through theft and inflation.
Why should US? tax payers advance the world economy out of their own pockets? Are they not doing it at a lost, because not every country is doing it?
The problem with regarding 6.7 billion people as one entity is who makes the decisions. Is there a set of arrangements that suits the wants of every one of the 6.7 billion people? If such an arrangement is to be achieved, it can only be done using coercion. The arrangement will be at the expense of some to the benefit of others. Such a situation will spawn conflict and unity? and existence of this entity will become threatened. The entity destroys itself in such an arrangement.