Political Common Ground
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 00:16
VIEWED: 5611
PAGE 5 of 5
You sound like me talking about public education. ;)
Anyway I do agree with you, but what about energy production. For me that is a key issue, I would like to see a move to alternative sources of power and an end to fossil fuels. This though would require government action, which I have no problem with, but would you support raise mileage standards and increasing environmental protections? Related what about Kyoto should it be ratified, though it does place stricter demands on more developed nations? I am a yes on both counts, how about you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually education has little to do with it. The people destroying the Earth know what they're doing and don't care.
I'm going to go no on both accounts.
1. Kyoto is pretty flawed, and signing it exempts China, and China is an environmental disaster. I want to see the ideas in Kyoto merged into a word trade agreement where everyone who wants to trade has to agree to certain environmental standards. countries and companies both should have to agree.
Underdeveloped nations are the big environmental destroyers. I think that a trade package like this would be a big incentive for them, because they also lack trade and want it very badly. They don't however fear international law, so an environmental convention on the lines of the geneva convention would mean nothing to them.
On that note, we can continue the environment talk, but also I want to talk about healthcare, because I think that will attract a lot more attention. People don't disagree on what should be done with the environment (stop the bad people) they just disagree on a couple of minor points: who the bad people are (this is mostly a factual point) and what way to best stop them.
As to Healthcare, half of us seem to want a public health, and half of us have no interest in a public health. Ergo, the compromise solution has to provide a public health as a standard and as a service for the poor, but it has to do some at a reasonable cost. It's best if it can pay for itself.
Here's my first thought on that: Medical school is expensive. What if the govt. agreed to pay for med school in exchange for 5 years service at normal type (not doctorific) salaries. This would give it a lot of personel very cheaply.
The second wing of the plan would have to include a type of deregulation that would increase competition and lower costs to customers in the private sector.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK we can switch to healthcare. I agree not much really to discuss about the environment, though the truth is that the developed nations are the major consumers and polluters in the world. The problem with combining treaties (environment and trade) is that they get watered down in negotiations, the less negotiated the more on point the treaty, plus trade is a quagmire and it is best to keep environmental concerns separate. Though it is an interesting idea, and may work if there was more support for the environment from key nations.
Now of all the topics I can say that Healthcare is one that I am not that familiar with, but I do know that Americans pay far more for less when it comes to healthcare. My medical bills for my children, who are healthy, have been staggering. A simple examination with a machine that goes 'ping' is quite expensive. Dealing with our doctor is fine, but going to see a specialist is an exercise in patience as appointments are never on time.
Yes, the cost of medical school is a problem, so it is with law school (from personal experience). Many law schools have loan repayment plans for public interest work, I wonder if medical schools have the same. Personally, I think a federal program for loan repayment for public interest work would be a good idea for both doctors and lawyers. So I agree something here is a good idea.
I dislike the idea of a two-tier healthcare system, one for the poor and one for everyone else, this is a recipe for abuse. We need one system for everyone. Personally, I favor a state-managed coverage, for I have doubts about private industry, which right now is in control of our healtcare system, which is clearly broken.
The main problems as I see it is cost, poor administration, insufficient medical resources, and care of the elderly. Administratively medicare is far more efficient than private industry, because there is genuine pressure on public entities to be lean and efficient. I think a state-managed coverage system, such as medicare for all Americans just makes sense to me.
Still I am curious on what you want to deregulate and how that would lower prices?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KJW
DevelopING nations are the biggest destroyers, with the biggest offenders being China, Brazil, and also on a smaller scale Thailand, Vietnam, the CAR, the Congo, etc.
Healthcare is a big topic so I'll post later on that, but I'm in complete disagreement. I don't think that it's being done well anywhere, I think it's bearly being done at all.
A few regulations I'd like to see go: There's all sort of stuff to limit who can practice medicine, which cuts down on competition, and raises prices. This was once done to ensure quality, but now I feel certain it's being done to raise prices.
Another one is there are regulations that say "you can only prescribe this or that for XYZ condition, and ones that say you have to prescribe this AND that, which is sometimes just pure corruption to help the sale of 'that.'
I would prefer one which was tied to informing the patient, and not prohibiting, like "here's the info that says this works, and why, and here's the argument for this alternative."
I like competition, I prefer private vs. public to all public no competition, I'd prefer all private. But since this is a compromise, it's going to end up as a two part solution.
This is not going to be one for the rich and one for the poor. Public health facilities wil probably cost money, and medicare will probably pay for private care. It's a matter of solving the two main problems with healthcare:
1. The cost is outrageous, as much as ten times other first-world nations' private services.
2. The quality sucks. It's so bad that often it's better to not go at all.
The third problem, the fact that some people have no insurance, and maybe can't afford any healthcare, refers to people like me. Since I'm frequently in the position of not being able to afford medical care, I am very familiar with this problem, but it is still not the major problem. If we could solve 1 and 2 I would be happy to let this third one slide. But both Dems and Repubs seem to focus on 3 so you won't pay any attention to 1 and 2.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
1. The cost is outrageous, as much as ten times other first-world nations' private services.
2. The quality sucks. It's so bad that often it's better to not go at all.
Are these comparisons of private healthcare to public healthcare?
If so I think they are incorrect.
Private healthcare isn't less expensive, not in real terms, it's more profitable because it gives less care, not more.
For instance the overnight team of a post-op ward in an NHS hospital will consist of nurses, doctors and consultants.
The same ward in a private hospital will consist often of just two trainee doctors, as this saves money that goes back to the shareholders.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME