- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 0
Without getting into a debate about the other political issues, which candidate to you feel would have the greatest positive impact on our current healthcare system and why?
which presidential candidate can fix the healthcare system?
- Thread starter RoyalFB
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,312
- Reaction score
- 2
Ron Paul all the way. I like elements of the other candidates ideas, and I don't think Paul even has a formal plan yet, but at least his priorities are straight and he understands fiscal responsibility. I have no doubt that he would confront the issue openly and honestly. As for the other candidates, what they say will happen sounds good, but I don't trust any of them. Just my opinion.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 1
i think were screwed regardless
Id agree. Unfortunately, after looking at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp, and seeing how much money the democrats have raised compared to republicans, I fear the next president will surely be a democrat. Hopefully I am wrong.
By the way, on www.opensecrets.org you can see how much individual people gave to what candidate. For example, I found that my mom gave money to one of the republican candidates. Pretty crazy, huh?
1
167649
Regrettably, I don't see any of our current candidates presenting any fresh or progressive solutions to this problem either.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,526
- Reaction score
- 1
Nobody ever fixes anything as complex as the health system. They just change aspects of it. Most of the time these changes benefit some people and hurt others. When you ask the question who will "fix" the system what you really need to ask is what do I want the health system to accomplish specifically and from there you can identify which area is most "broken" for you.
If your primary concern is physician salaries, or you are convinced decreased salaries will lead to compromised patient care, then perhaps the republican parties are slightly more suited to the task (though even they aren't really looking out for physicians specifically). If you are more concerned about access to care then perhaps a candidate with a universal coverage platform is more desirable. Personally, I think most people are concerned about both of these issues (and many others regarding the health care system) it all depends on the relative weight you give them.
Define what you consider a well-functioning health system and vote according to who addresses the most significant aspects of your vision (if healthcare reform is the most important thing you are considering when voting). No one is ever going to single-handedly entirely fix the system. Politics rarely work that way.
If your primary concern is physician salaries, or you are convinced decreased salaries will lead to compromised patient care, then perhaps the republican parties are slightly more suited to the task (though even they aren't really looking out for physicians specifically). If you are more concerned about access to care then perhaps a candidate with a universal coverage platform is more desirable. Personally, I think most people are concerned about both of these issues (and many others regarding the health care system) it all depends on the relative weight you give them.
Define what you consider a well-functioning health system and vote according to who addresses the most significant aspects of your vision (if healthcare reform is the most important thing you are considering when voting). No one is ever going to single-handedly entirely fix the system. Politics rarely work that way.
1
135892
Ron Paul
1
175961
agreed....i think this is why half the population hates the president while the other half loves him(not referring just to current president). someone will always be happy and someone will always be sad/angry. i wonder if there will ever come a time where everyone will be satisfied?? very difficult to see that happening
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
No candidate will fix anything. Because politics is more about winning votes than it is about accomplishing anything tangible. Once in the White House either side will spend most of their time attempting to look bipartisan while stunting plans and programs presented by the opposing side.
Then they'll get some photo-ops with babies to make the world better.
GO POLITICIANS!
Then they'll get some photo-ops with babies to make the world better.
GO POLITICIANS!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh no! SDN is full of republicans! Block this site while you still can!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,750
- Reaction score
- 12
I care about my future salary, but not enough to vote republican. This calls for a banana.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,454
- Reaction score
- 30
Anyone but Hilary or Obama. However, I don't think the president alone has enough power to change the healthcare system of the entire nation. I feel it has more to do with problems in the local state government. I cant speak for other states but in Jersey the political climate is downright stagnant and corruption is par for the course.
I also recently read that NJ's ob/gyn's pay $180,000 a year in malpractice. A fix is desperately needed and I feel it goes well beyond the scope of electing a president.
Ladies and Gentlemen I hate to say it but...
we need superman.
I also recently read that NJ's ob/gyn's pay $180,000 a year in malpractice. A fix is desperately needed and I feel it goes well beyond the scope of electing a president.
Ladies and Gentlemen I hate to say it but...
we need superman.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 0
funny you should ask this because I was just asked this question at my most recent interview. I said that no politician could convince me that they will be the ones to fix the health care system. I'd have to see it to believe it. Politicians have been know to distort their ideals in order to reel in the most votes.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's what needs to happen. Cut the number of health care bureaucrats and administrators in half. Offer them discounted training to become more usable healthcare providers (nurses, CNAs, phleblotomists, etc.). Then we will have twice as many health care providers and only a few too many administrators. We'll have expanded ability to provide care, instead of a shortage of workers.
And maybe if schools could provide more openings to med students or more medical schools were available outside of the Eastern US we could train more phsyicians.
Oh, then clear some brush, and hug a few babies.
And maybe if schools could provide more openings to med students or more medical schools were available outside of the Eastern US we could train more phsyicians.
Oh, then clear some brush, and hug a few babies.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 3
No candidate, Republican or Democrat, is going to "fix" health care in this country. Pushing for an overhaul to give us national health care is political suicide, so they are maintaining the status quo by proposing what is expected of them by being in their political parties:
Romney:
- wants to deregulate the insurance market through eliminating individual/employer mandates, thus lowering insurance costs
- wants to put Medicaid funds into block grants and give more power to the states to decide on purchasing private coverage
- wants to redirect current state subsidies for uncompensated care towards providers to help low-income people get coverage
- no government mandates on employers or individuals to purchase health coverage (which confuses the hell out of me since he did the opposite for MA to ensure all its people get covered)
Giuliani:
- wants to provide individuals without coverage a tax deduction and lower income families refundable tax credit to help purchase health insurance
- wants to let people buy health insurance across state lines (this is really bad since health plans are subject to state laws)
- no government mandates on employers or individuals to purchase health coverage
Clinton:
- wants to have all Americans get health insurance coverage
- wants to provide subsidies for people without employer-based coverage
- wants to establish an "Health Choices Menu" run by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) that will create a Medicare-like plan that will compete with insurance plans in the private sector
- wants to prevent insurers from denying enrollment based on pre-existing medical conditions
Obama:
- wants to expand Medicaid and SCHIP
- wants to have all children covered
- wants to create a National Health Insurance Exchange, which will basically let small employers and individuals without employment-based coverage to enroll in a public plan
- wants to expand re-insurance of private health plans
- wants to prevent insurers from denying enrollment based on pre-existing medical conditions
What it boils down to is that the Republican candidates want less government involvement in health care and would like it to move to the private sector, whereas Democrats believe it should be a public service and would like to expand the current government programs and then some. To be honest, Romney seems like the worst choice overall because he has no plan (except for medical liability reform) to cut costs. Those are just my $0.02.
Romney:
- wants to deregulate the insurance market through eliminating individual/employer mandates, thus lowering insurance costs
- wants to put Medicaid funds into block grants and give more power to the states to decide on purchasing private coverage
- wants to redirect current state subsidies for uncompensated care towards providers to help low-income people get coverage
- no government mandates on employers or individuals to purchase health coverage (which confuses the hell out of me since he did the opposite for MA to ensure all its people get covered)
Giuliani:
- wants to provide individuals without coverage a tax deduction and lower income families refundable tax credit to help purchase health insurance
- wants to let people buy health insurance across state lines (this is really bad since health plans are subject to state laws)
- no government mandates on employers or individuals to purchase health coverage
Clinton:
- wants to have all Americans get health insurance coverage
- wants to provide subsidies for people without employer-based coverage
- wants to establish an "Health Choices Menu" run by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) that will create a Medicare-like plan that will compete with insurance plans in the private sector
- wants to prevent insurers from denying enrollment based on pre-existing medical conditions
Obama:
- wants to expand Medicaid and SCHIP
- wants to have all children covered
- wants to create a National Health Insurance Exchange, which will basically let small employers and individuals without employment-based coverage to enroll in a public plan
- wants to expand re-insurance of private health plans
- wants to prevent insurers from denying enrollment based on pre-existing medical conditions
What it boils down to is that the Republican candidates want less government involvement in health care and would like it to move to the private sector, whereas Democrats believe it should be a public service and would like to expand the current government programs and then some. To be honest, Romney seems like the worst choice overall because he has no plan (except for medical liability reform) to cut costs. Those are just my $0.02.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 3
Here's what needs to happen. Cut the number of health care bureaucrats and administrators in half. Offer them discounted training to become more usable healthcare providers (nurses, CNAs, phleblotomists, etc.). Then we will have twice as many health care providers and only a few too many administrators. We'll have expanded ability to provide care, instead of a shortage of workers.
And maybe if schools could provide more openings to med students or more medical schools were available outside of the Eastern US we could train more phsyicians.
Oh, then clear some brush, and hug a few babies.
Part of cutting costs is cutting the amount of services offered, and having significantly more medical professionals will be as detrimental as those administrative positions.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 0
Chuck Norris
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
Unbelievable. Whoever asked the question, "are physicians generally liberal or conservative," just read this thread.
If you want to protect your salary, perhaps you should vote republican.
If you have a heart, do otherwise.
When responding to this post, please refrain from throwing around empty cold war-era propagandistic slang such as "socialized medicine."
If you want to protect your salary, perhaps you should vote republican.
If you have a heart, do otherwise.
When responding to this post, please refrain from throwing around empty cold war-era propagandistic slang such as "socialized medicine."
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 5
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 1
I feel in my heart of hearts that socialized medicine would be the best answer.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
I really don't understand why you people think the republicans are interested in protecting physicians' salaries (except Dr. Paul).
The republicans care about protecting the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries' profits, which runs counter to physician's interests. And for the record, no democrat has said anything about decreasing doctors' salaries.
My view--Vote Kucinich and get rid of the f*cking insurance companies once and for all
The republicans care about protecting the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries' profits, which runs counter to physician's interests. And for the record, no democrat has said anything about decreasing doctors' salaries.
My view--Vote Kucinich and get rid of the f*cking insurance companies once and for all
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
The point is that conservatives will protect the free-market approach to health care, keeping the gov't away from physicians' pockets. It's an indirect, longer term effect.
Btw, I'd take kucinich over any of those terrifying republicans.
I think it results from the assumption that universal care is going to reduce salaries. That's the big issue here. People make the following assumptions in these discussions
1) A dem is likely to push for some sort of universal coverage a repub is unlikely to do so
2) UC will result in reduced salaries (maybe drastically)
I'm not entirely convinced of the latter, but I support universal coverage either way.
Also, repubs protect rich peoples' salary well.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 0
RIGHT ON DROGBA. Chuck Norris supports universal coverage too
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
i hope you're just trying to piss me off.
PLEASE, if you actually believe in single-payer, universal health care, DO NOT call it "socialized medicine" !!!! that term was created by the AMA in a massive attempt to shut down Truman's attempt to create universal care. Note, this is the cold war....(attaching the word "socialized" was a tactic to equate universal care with socialism, evoking the fear of communist soviet union (red scare) etc). Obviously, the AMA succeeded, and even today we cringe at "socialized medicine." It's an EMPTY POLEMIC.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
Exactly. However, the big 3 dems are really skirting the real issue with their plans. It will be quite a while before we are convinced that countries other than the US can be right about something.
4
45408
Clearly, you need to look into Ron Paul.
4
45408
You also should look into Ron Paul and be amazed.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
it seems like all Ron Paul supporters ever do is say "check out Ron Paul."
i never hear any substantive remarks about his policy
1
154465
So why don't you check out Ron Paul? It's all pretty simple, do a Google search. I'm sure a couple things will pop out.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
Um, didn't you hear? The US is always right about everything. We've been a successful country for a whole TWO HUNDRED YEARS, so we pretty much have all the answers. Crazy for you to think otherwise!
And I agree... I don't think any one candidate can fix the system. They all have ideas of how the system should be changed but I don't think anyone has a really solid plan of how it's going to happen.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,516
In terms of healthcare I'm always surprised how scared people are of the democrats when they haven't actually read anything they've proposed. Basically Clinton and Obama are proposing the same plan: throw money at health care. No socialized medicine, nothing regulating pharm, no regulations concerning how a doctor cares for his patients. They just want to give more people medicaid waivers.
Now I'm not sure that's the best plan for our country, but it's definitely the best plan for doctors. Have you ever heard of a doctor complain about a medicaid waiver? Doctors have two major problems with their finances: malpractice and people/insurance companies who won't pay their bills. The Democrats are basically proposing to solve the second problem by taxing everyone and give the money to healthcare (i.e. doctors).
Now I'm not sure that's the best plan for our country, but it's definitely the best plan for doctors. Have you ever heard of a doctor complain about a medicaid waiver? Doctors have two major problems with their finances: malpractice and people/insurance companies who won't pay their bills. The Democrats are basically proposing to solve the second problem by taxing everyone and give the money to healthcare (i.e. doctors).
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 1
Another view of ignorance. Most of the issues with funding for hospitals and private practices is because of medicare, which is the state payer plan. Don't be so ignorant, if you don't believe me wait till the Jan. 1st. Medicare reimbursements will be cut 10% and Medicaid will no longer the cover cost of drugs that Medicare doesn't. If you want to bash Rebuplicans, fine your entitled to your opinion. But know that it's the Democrats in the legislature now (The very same ones who are running for the presidency, Kucinich included) that were content with cutting the funds of medicare and allowing the cuts to be enacted this January. Before, the republican dominated congresses delayed the cuts because they knew it wouldn't help patients. Anyways If certain members of the new Democrat controlled legislature won't even fund the system we have now, how can anyone be so blind to trust in anyone, regardless of political party, to be some kind of a politcal hero and make some "fix all" system.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 0
maybe because we're not Fox News. Rather than providing our spin on issues, we want you to use your intellectual capability to read a little and decide for yourself.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
I think universal healthcare would be great, but they need to make medical school affordable before they start cutting physician salaries. Nobody should have to suffer just because some people are so greedy that they would rather see somebody suffer from disease and illness than take a hit to their paycheck. I find it surprising that so many premeds are against universal health care, maybe they should have considered investment banking or day trading as opposed to medicine.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 0
really?
...
When have democrats EVER tried to cut funds to social programs? If cuts are made, it's because of an unyielding lame duck president who's trying to build a imaginary legacy of fiscal responsibility. A threat of presidential veto is the reason why many children lack health care right now...
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,516
To be clear, it's not a 'threat', it's something that's already happened multiple times. They keep sending him the SCHIP bill, he keeps vetoing it.
really?
...
When have democrats EVER tried to cut funds to social programs? If cuts are made, it's because of an unyielding lame duck president who's trying to build a imaginary legacy of fiscal responsibility. A threat of presidential veto is the reason why many children lack health care right now...
Welfare reform under Clinton? That said I'm not entirely certain as to who has carried out the various medicare cuts over the years. I'd be really interested to see a timeline and will probably look for one later on. I wonder if kff has anything on it.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 2
You tax the rich to pay for health care for everyone. The government is the great overseer, regulator, and holder of the purse strings... what part of this is NOT socialist? Or communist, for that matter? It's a command economy model, and it will fail.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 694
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll give you all a hint...it won't be fixed if you vote for someone whose first name is Hillary and last name is Clinton
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 171
I'll vote for Hillary or Obama, whichever one ends up being the Democrat candidate. Unless something unforeseen happens, one of them will be president, and I think that is a good thing, not bad. I personally would prefer Hillary.
