doublegunshop.com - home Forums From Justice Roberts....

Sadly this is true on both sides of the aisle. If Obamacare is repealed it will be replaced by some equally useless, unfair and ineffective program. Or replaced by nothing, which is just as bad.

Well if the dems aren't gonna repeal it them it must be the republicans who're unfair. It would be a very short list of 'bad' things if it was replaced by nothing, but I believe the right had the Ryan plan. What's your plan and how many nonexistent tax dollars will need to be printed or borrowed.

It's pretty clear that doing nothing is not the answer. I guess you see something or someone you're willing to trust; good for you. I haven't seen it on either side.

They are almost all crooked morons. I'll give Obama credit for trying to do something, but I just don't like what he has done, nor do I care for the way he rammed it through the legislative process without adequate review or disclosure. If Obamacare gets repealed, we still need to fix a lot of things related to our health insurance and health care systems. Those are two separate but related systems. The solutions go way beyond those two systems, and include factors such as tort reform, border control, state insurance restrictions and regulation, allowable scope of services for medical and dental professionals, the federal and state tax codes, the orientation of the NLRB, and the list goes on. We need an integrated approach to solving this problem and the legislators seem incapable of thinking rationally or on a macro scale. There is way too much ass covering and posturing at the federal level for the problem to be solved any time soon. Obamacare is not the solution, but we may be stuck with it anyway. Suboptimized more because of politics than because of economics. Crap. A pox on both houses.

Right you are. And both sides are so locked into their ideology that neither is willing to step back and do what's necessary to move things forward.

Most if not all of the 'factors' can be fixed for free through legislation not taxation. I do not blindly subscribe that it's broken. We have the best healthcare in the world. If given a stack of stats on how great things are somewhere else, I know where I'd prefer to get sick or more importantly where I'd want my wife to get medical attention.

There's an underlying implication that we need more money, and a panel of smart folks who decide how to spend it. 'Allowable scope of services', are you sure if that's legislated, things would be better.

If you don't realize that the system is broken, then you are not paying enough attention. I never said nor implied that it needs to be fixed through (additional) taxation, but the current tax code is an impediment to reforming the health care system. They are already collecting plenty of our tax money, but they are not spending it efficiently. We have some of the best health care in the world, but it is not THE best (see comparative data on infant mortality, for example). The fact that not all of our outcomes are at the top of the heap is not necessarily the fault of the system. Many of the problems, especially re chronic disease patterns, are directly related to lifestyle choices by the population, whether conscious or unconscious. Health education is part of the solution, just like controlling the borders is part of the solution. No single factor will fix the system. I'm not talking about "how great things are somewhere else," but rather how much better things could be here if the government got its head out of its ass and screwed it on straight. If the government were a patient, the diagnosis would be acute cranial-anal impaction. There is no "underlying implication that we need more money, and a panel of smart folks who decide how to spend it," at least not coming from me. We need to do a better job of allocating the financial and other resources that we already have, and "smart people" are probably best equipped to do that. Re "allowable scope of services," I am absolutely sure that if scope of service and related payment issues were refined, that we would have a more efficient delivery system. Just as you don't need an electrical engineer to replace a blown circuit breaker, you don't need a board certified surgeon to diagnose and treat a common cold.

Re your comment "Most if not all of the 'factors' can be fixed for free through legislation not taxation." I agree, but a large component of the problem is that the politicians who could fix much of this through legislation are neither smart enough nor honest enough to get it done.

Oh, I think they're smart enough. Smart enough to do what's best for themselves. Now, honest enough? That's another matter.

With very few exceptions, they are not smart (i.e., informed) enough to grasp the nuances of the systems, because they have never worked within the health care or health insurance systems, and have not taken the time to immerse themselves in the details. Even if they did that, many don't have the innate intelligence to synthesize the data into useful information and action plans. This is compounded by the myriad of personal and political agendas that they are pursuing. Few, if any, actually have the best interests of the country and the electorate in mind. Some of the most intelligent people I have ever worked with have been in health care, but their intelligence did not give them the ability to fix the parts of the system that they had no experience in. The clinicians often do not understand the business and the business guys do not understand the clinical aspects. And the government relations people only understand politics.

Your point is well taken. They're smart enough if they would apply it correctly; I agree that most don't or won't. You are spot on that politics, personal agendas, and pleasing their special interests take precedence over what's best for the people and the country.