Comments on: The Solution to the Cost-Control Crisis Is Obvious

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:54:43 +0000

Just think of how much cheaper healthcare would be if the government wasn't involved as much, with costs brought down more people could afford coverage.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:27:28 +0000

And in case you're wondering, I'm completely serious. I mean, I don't like the way it's handled now and would like to see a radical overhaul. I just don't think it will make as big a difference unless (and maybe not even then) it's as drastic as what I'm thinking of.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:46:01 +0000

“But that is not what is being proposed. One good, quick way to reduce medical costs is always denounced on by thee left – tort reform.”

Define the tort reform that you feel would make a big difference. So far it hasn't made much of a difference to those states that have passed it.

By: joeinhell

joeinhell — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:42:48 +0000

Cost cutting? Cost cutting? You want to cut costs, stop the damned wars, then we can afford for everyone to have Cadillac health care without increasing spending a dime. In fact, spending would go down. If we totally abolished the military, just send them home at full pay for life, we would save more than $400 billion a year. Abolish Homeland Security and send all their employees home with lifetime pay, we could save another $100 billion.

Cost cutting, my sorry ass. The simple fact is that if I had $1 billion dollars in cash, I could buy the congress and the senate to not only impeach Obama and have him tried for war crimes and shot, but get a bill passed allowing men to rape female dogs on the National Mall. The government motto should be “of, by and for the rich.”

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:39:24 +0000

Kathy - too bad you don't get the underlying reality being presented, and only post this in a facetious manner.

While certainly no one (really) thinks we need to stop spending on health care, that doesn't mean the opposite, spend even more, is true or a good idea.

Any true reform that didn't cost $1- $3 B more over the next ten years, one that could actually show a way to reduce medical costs overall nationwide while expanding coverage, would quickly be embraced by most everyone, and certainly by me.

But that is not what is being proposed. One good, quick way to reduce medical costs is always denounced on by thee left - tort reform. Ask anyone who is a doctor, or has family members who are medical doctors (my brother is an oral surgeon), and they can tell you just how large a percentage of their income goes to malpractice and related insurances.

A good percentage of the paperwork required by government and insurance companies is driven by these same concerns, which is another hidden cost that is embedded in the system.

There are other reforms, many proposed by the left as well, that would reduce costs without affecting benefits. But they are not politically viable.

These days, the only politically acceptable options seems to be have government take control of a larger share, increase the costs further, increase taxes to support it, reduce choices, and then wonder why people are so revolted by what is trug to be shoved down their throats.