Not really on topic at this point, but there was an interesting contrast piece on Schilling and Clemons in the summer Atlantic:

Pitchers Duel

(09-17-2009 10:55 AM)ausowl Wrote:  Not really on topic at this point, but there was an interesting contrast piece on Schilling and Clemons in the summer Atlantic:

Pitchers Duel

The only "Hall" Roger Clemons will be getting into in the next few years will be the "Chow Hall" at a Federal Detention Center when he is doing 18 months for perjury.

(09-04-2009 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I don't understand is why the republicans or some bipartisan group or somebody doesn't drop into the hopper a plan based on the following:

1. Universal coverage based on the French model, which essentially gets the government out of the healthcare business (other than the catastrophic care umbrella, the government is limited to doing what your employer does, deducting money from your paycheck and sending it to an insurance company).
2. Transition rules for medicare and medicaid. My approach would be to fold medicaid into the new system immediately, and to allow medicare recipients a choice: if you're on medicare now, you can keep it; if you are between, say, 50 and 65, you can choose either to go on the new system now and punt medicare, or keep your present coverage until you do go on medicare; if you're younger than 50, you are on the new system. I think those ages would reasonably reflect the costs and benefits associated with the different approaches, and over time medicare would phase out.
3. Tort reform focused specifically on replacing large monetary punitive damages with a mechanism for getting bad docs off the street (what punitives are supposed to accomplish but don't).
4. Bringing significant pressure to bear on other countries to pick up their fair share of R&D costs, so that drug costs could be lowered here. We probably have to streamline FDA to get anyone else to agree, and there's nothing wrong with that.
5. Increased competition for medical insurance, by removing current regulations that function primarily as barriers to entry.

I am going from memory... but IIRC, this is at least ALONG THE LINES of what McCain proposed. (I'm not trying to sell him or the party.... this just sounds an awful lot like something we spoke about)

My paraphrase of the McCain proposal was that he would offer what amounts to a $5,000/year healthplan "voucher" to everyone. Again, IIRC, the vast majority of the money came from existing sources like Medicaid, the VA etc.... Insurance companies would obviously offer competing plans at that pricepoint... with the basic trade-offs being no deductible/copay HMO type plans, or PPO type plans with higher copays or deductibles. Employers would be free to offer and/or people could buy supplimental policies that would expand coverages... OR could apply that $5,000 to a larger plan. Again, IIRC, the $5,000 voucher faded out at higher incomes...

It seems to me that there would be a HUGE pot of money for insurers to fight over for those $5,000 policies... and all the government would have to do is monitor the providers of those policies... as opposed to having to monitor the doctors and all of the paperwork for the "real" claims... they'd only have to manage the complaints... and they could kick an insurance company out of the consortium if they got too many (valid) complaints which would be a HUGE incentive for them to fall in line. They wouldn't just risk losing a few policyholders... but they'd risk losing millions of policy holders.

Fundamentally, what is the difference between the VA and many HMO's?? If the government still oversees the "questions"... then what is the problem?