There have been all kinds of proposals and plans run through Congress. Back in 2012, Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) led the Republican Study Committee, and had a pretty good package to overhaul our health insurance program. Instead we still have Obamacare, toothless and neither affordable nor economically viable. Congress can fix this, and there are solutions working with existing health insurers, who have all the data and oceans of money. It's not about access to healthcare, it's about access to the money to pay the bill.
David, I have to agree that the health insurance industry in the US is broken. Fortunately I had great medical insurance up until Obamacare was enacted at which my great medical insurance became good medical insurance with much higher deductibles became a reality. Now that I am on Medicare, I can only say that government is not the answer. Reviewing a statement from Medicare is a trip through fantasy land. The charges are astronomical and the approved amount is usually significantly reduced. The health provider knows what Medicare will allow but submits charges that are what? Are the charges truly reflective of the actual costs or inflated to increase the allowable total? It's absurd. PDPs are not better.
Changes need to be made and will only be done so by the medical insurance agencies and the government joining together for significant reforms. I don't see that happening, but really do not believe a single payer government plan is the answer.
I am not on Medicare, but it appears healthcare providers, in general, charge significantly above the amount approved by insurance. It is my understanding that providers must bill at or above their highest contracted rate to ensure they capture the maximum allowed amount permitted by any specific insurance contract.
If doctors are in your insurance company network, they cannot bill for any balance left after co-pays, deductibles, and any applied coinsurance payments. Medicare providers are strictly forbidden to balance bill patients.
I was elbow deep in these issues while working, but retirement took me away from the madness. I watched with dismay as numerous plans were put forth and rather than the interested parties/ political parties working together, they circled the wagons and protected their own.
I could rant for hours on our failings, but what's the point? With each passing day, it gets worse.
Citizen's United was one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS. It opened the flood gates and now we've all been swamped by the swamp. We simply will never fix the any of the serious problems we face; those spending the real money will insure nothing changes.
I have to quibble with the view of Citizens United. It was a First Amendment case at its core and deciding the other way would have allowed the government to censor political speech.
Good David, quibbling is good. In fact about the only time we see it is when one of Matt Tabbi's folks stumble upon the site and take a crap. I'd love to see more interplay, but it is what it is.
Let me do my part and start by saying Mitt Romney was one of the last, best republican's. I know the rap, he's a RINO. He also was/is a decent human being which almost immediately disqualifies him from the maga clan.
Okay, with that out of the way, let's throw away Citizen's United and the argument corporations are people too (freaking really?). Because my set up was more about how SCOTUS changed the landscape.
And i mean in a really, really bad way. The byproduct of this "free speech" ruling is the advent of dark money. So let me rephrase my remark; how do you feel about dark money and the impact on politics in our lives today?
In my humble opinion, dark money changed life as we know it and unless and until we fix it, the down hill slide won't stop.
We bring the expertise of academics to the public.
About our team
Federal law, for example, allows certain entities – most notably nonprofits designated as “social welfare” organizations or trade associations under Sections 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the tax code – to raise and spend large sums on electoral advocacy without disclosing their donors."
Interesting read Curtis and further exacerbates the need for true election reform. In my former work life, the terms i was most familiar with was hard money and soft money. I was a fan of neither.
My preference was and still is publicly financed campaigns with election cycles limited to months not years. The voters since the Citizens United ruling have become less important. To be clear, that's both from the right and the left.
Money drives every election; ideas, policies and platforms are secondary to who raises the most money. We simply have become a country where our politicians are truly the best money can buy. Hard to believe how little we get out of how much is spent.
What's even worse is AI and what that means in the coming years. Thank God i am old.
I can't comprehend how public funding will produce better government. Granted, many politicians (left and right) are greedy and corrupt, but they have to produce some results to get re-elected. Based on the below link, it does appear that significant public funding produces a government closer to a pure democracy than our representative republic. If the three cities cited (Seattle, Denver and Washington DC) are typical, I would not say it produces good or honest government.
Another excellent article Curtis, thanks. I suspect you know these types of changes with public financed campaigns have and would improve both the quality of the candidates and their platform incrementally. I watched in horror as the best candidates all too often were the ones who could raise the most money. Hardly a quality i am impressed by. Too many of them understand courting deep pockets is way easier than asking constituents.
Oddly enough, the only time i have ever donated to republicans is when they were running under the banner of clean elections and needed the small donor donations to qualify for matching funds.
A pure democracy...what a novel approach. Again thanks for the article.
Sorry to hear your Republican congressman did not respond. You should publish his name. On the other hand, I do not believe that congress critter involvement in a citizen's dealing with federal agencies should be necessary. That it is necessary is a symptom of bureaucratic failures.
Today's medical care is far superior to what it was 75 years ago even though I remember our family doctor coming to the house and giving me a shot after diagnosing measles.
The FAA receives over 400,000 pilot license applications per year. Less than a third are for commercial and airline transport pilots. If I were in charge, I would give priority to those who earn a living as pilots.
It appears that the increase in medical costs and increase in college costs started about the same time. Staffing might be a factor. The University System of Georgia has about 350,000 students and 50,000 employees. I suspect there are similar numbers in the medical field. I feel like an expert because of the hours I spend in medical facilities observing the number of staff and patients.
We should all appreciate the availability of CT and Ultrasound scans and miracle drugs and laser sharp needles. Medical practice without these modern improvements would probably be illegal. But it does cost more.
There have been all kinds of proposals and plans run through Congress. Back in 2012, Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) led the Republican Study Committee, and had a pretty good package to overhaul our health insurance program. Instead we still have Obamacare, toothless and neither affordable nor economically viable. Congress can fix this, and there are solutions working with existing health insurers, who have all the data and oceans of money. It's not about access to healthcare, it's about access to the money to pay the bill.
Something like Germany's system is probably most likely to fit in the US.
I’m not familiar with their system,
And old explainer vid (from a series comparing various systems worldwide) is at https://youtu.be/NdarqEbDeV0?is=MkUnZhuPoNdWQio-.
Full set of vids is at https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkfBg8ML-gIngk82SUbTp6Og_KkYfJ6oF&si=wFtrUjhbdMdJaEKe.
David, I have to agree that the health insurance industry in the US is broken. Fortunately I had great medical insurance up until Obamacare was enacted at which my great medical insurance became good medical insurance with much higher deductibles became a reality. Now that I am on Medicare, I can only say that government is not the answer. Reviewing a statement from Medicare is a trip through fantasy land. The charges are astronomical and the approved amount is usually significantly reduced. The health provider knows what Medicare will allow but submits charges that are what? Are the charges truly reflective of the actual costs or inflated to increase the allowable total? It's absurd. PDPs are not better.
Changes need to be made and will only be done so by the medical insurance agencies and the government joining together for significant reforms. I don't see that happening, but really do not believe a single payer government plan is the answer.
I am not on Medicare, but it appears healthcare providers, in general, charge significantly above the amount approved by insurance. It is my understanding that providers must bill at or above their highest contracted rate to ensure they capture the maximum allowed amount permitted by any specific insurance contract.
If doctors are in your insurance company network, they cannot bill for any balance left after co-pays, deductibles, and any applied coinsurance payments. Medicare providers are strictly forbidden to balance bill patients.
/full snark mode activated
I've listened to conservatives for years go on and on about personal responsibility and moral failings are the cause of an individuals troubles:
Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex
Don't want to get arrested, don't break the law
Why not... if you don't want to be hobbled by crushing medical dept, don't get sick?
If everything is reduced to personal choice, it the patient's fault for not staying in good health.
/super snark mode activated
It often amuses me that the government is always the evil actor except when it comes to:
Don't want an abortion, don't get one
Don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then marry some one of the opposite
Don't want an ectopic pregnancy, don't have sex
for these, the government is the great savior imposing moral codes
It’s like my joke about telling my kids to be careful. If they get hurt, they were disobedient.
I was elbow deep in these issues while working, but retirement took me away from the madness. I watched with dismay as numerous plans were put forth and rather than the interested parties/ political parties working together, they circled the wagons and protected their own.
I could rant for hours on our failings, but what's the point? With each passing day, it gets worse.
Citizen's United was one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS. It opened the flood gates and now we've all been swamped by the swamp. We simply will never fix the any of the serious problems we face; those spending the real money will insure nothing changes.
I have to quibble with the view of Citizens United. It was a First Amendment case at its core and deciding the other way would have allowed the government to censor political speech.
Good David, quibbling is good. In fact about the only time we see it is when one of Matt Tabbi's folks stumble upon the site and take a crap. I'd love to see more interplay, but it is what it is.
Let me do my part and start by saying Mitt Romney was one of the last, best republican's. I know the rap, he's a RINO. He also was/is a decent human being which almost immediately disqualifies him from the maga clan.
Okay, with that out of the way, let's throw away Citizen's United and the argument corporations are people too (freaking really?). Because my set up was more about how SCOTUS changed the landscape.
And i mean in a really, really bad way. The byproduct of this "free speech" ruling is the advent of dark money. So let me rephrase my remark; how do you feel about dark money and the impact on politics in our lives today?
In my humble opinion, dark money changed life as we know it and unless and until we fix it, the down hill slide won't stop.
Dark money generally refers to political spending from undisclosed donors.
From: https://theconversation.com/what-is-dark-money-political-spending-and-how-does-it-affect-us-politics-236294
"But campaign finance disclosure laws have gaps.
We bring the expertise of academics to the public.
About our team
Federal law, for example, allows certain entities – most notably nonprofits designated as “social welfare” organizations or trade associations under Sections 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the tax code – to raise and spend large sums on electoral advocacy without disclosing their donors."
Interesting read Curtis and further exacerbates the need for true election reform. In my former work life, the terms i was most familiar with was hard money and soft money. I was a fan of neither.
My preference was and still is publicly financed campaigns with election cycles limited to months not years. The voters since the Citizens United ruling have become less important. To be clear, that's both from the right and the left.
Money drives every election; ideas, policies and platforms are secondary to who raises the most money. We simply have become a country where our politicians are truly the best money can buy. Hard to believe how little we get out of how much is spent.
What's even worse is AI and what that means in the coming years. Thank God i am old.
I can't comprehend how public funding will produce better government. Granted, many politicians (left and right) are greedy and corrupt, but they have to produce some results to get re-elected. Based on the below link, it does appear that significant public funding produces a government closer to a pure democracy than our representative republic. If the three cities cited (Seattle, Denver and Washington DC) are typical, I would not say it produces good or honest government.
https://campaignlegal.org/update/what-public-financing-how-small-dollar-democracy-combats-big-money-elections
Another excellent article Curtis, thanks. I suspect you know these types of changes with public financed campaigns have and would improve both the quality of the candidates and their platform incrementally. I watched in horror as the best candidates all too often were the ones who could raise the most money. Hardly a quality i am impressed by. Too many of them understand courting deep pockets is way easier than asking constituents.
Oddly enough, the only time i have ever donated to republicans is when they were running under the banner of clean elections and needed the small donor donations to qualify for matching funds.
A pure democracy...what a novel approach. Again thanks for the article.
Sorry to hear your Republican congressman did not respond. You should publish his name. On the other hand, I do not believe that congress critter involvement in a citizen's dealing with federal agencies should be necessary. That it is necessary is a symptom of bureaucratic failures.
Today's medical care is far superior to what it was 75 years ago even though I remember our family doctor coming to the house and giving me a shot after diagnosing measles.
I agree on all counts.
The congressman in question is no longer in office. He retired, which may explain why he wasn’t interested in helping constituents.
After COVID, the FAA medical backlog was more than a year. It’s still several months.
Which begs the question: is it a buearucratic failure in regards to the process, or lack of personnel/resources to deal with the backlog?
Possibly both.
My flight surgeon says that a lot of the FAA reviewers aren’t doctors and don’t have a medical background.
The FAA receives over 400,000 pilot license applications per year. Less than a third are for commercial and airline transport pilots. If I were in charge, I would give priority to those who earn a living as pilots.
Or you'd setup two separate lines, with personnel appropriate for both.
Or just have enough personnel to handle all requests in one line.
And charge appropriate fees for the service. Just as I had to pay annually when I was a practicing Professional Engineer.
It looks like the staffing shortage is being addressed. The number of applications is enormous - over 400,000 per year.
https://omniflights.com/articles/faa-adds-40-more-staff-following-medical-review-audit
Nice post. Nice sentiments.
Unfortunately, the way your government is these days, I would not be very hopeful of progress on this front in the foreseeable future.
This issue has bedevilled your country since long before the current political insanity took hold.
Whelp, there goes Medicare Part D.
It appears that the increase in medical costs and increase in college costs started about the same time. Staffing might be a factor. The University System of Georgia has about 350,000 students and 50,000 employees. I suspect there are similar numbers in the medical field. I feel like an expert because of the hours I spend in medical facilities observing the number of staff and patients.
We should all appreciate the availability of CT and Ultrasound scans and miracle drugs and laser sharp needles. Medical practice without these modern improvements would probably be illegal. But it does cost more.