?

Log in

 

Political Solutions Forum

About Recent Entries

Jun. 30th, 2005 @ 01:41 pm
lordbrand
http://www.livejournal.com/community/politicsforum/703916.html?thread=16944300#t16944300

A response to a post on politicsforum May. 15th, 2005 @ 05:15 pm
doc_neuro
that having been said my solution to these sorts of problems (which I believe is what you are asking for) federal health insurance program covering what is traditionally encompassed in the concept of "acceptable minimum". for instance emergency room visits, a set number of GP and Specialist visits annually, and prescriptions drugs with say 30-40 dollar deductibles.

40 million people in this country are uninsured or underinsured. Insurance companies work on the principle of distributing risk among a large group of people. with each individual paying roughly the same amount amongst a large group of people you have a sizeable pool of money and only a few people using it at any given time. thus when you become part of that small percentage of people using it at any point its no big deal because a) you payed into it and b) everyone else who is not using it right now paid into it and can take up any slack. The larger this pool of people, the cheaper it is for everyone because risk is distributed over a greater number of people (corporations can afford to insure their employees because they get vastly reduced rates). with it distributed over 40 million people we're talking pennies on the dollar against most corporate insurance. if managed properly it could even turn a profit. I would suggest this "acceptable minimum" plan be the safety net for the uninsured and underinsured. preexisting condidtions should not be considered for this option.

I would also suggest offering a more andvanced, comprehensive and pricey version of the plan that would cover everything the above does not. this policy would be geared towards small business owners who cannot aford such luxuries. a sizeable chunk of the 40 million people fall under this category.

unshavengod suggested that The main cause of "rising healthcare costs" is the fact that we've invented too many diseases, and everyone is seduced by the attitude of "well everyone else is getting drugs, I deserve some too!

this is true and that is why we dont do traditional indemnity insurance anymore but largely rely on HMOs to control cost. Its like old school insurance companies that can look at what doctors do and say "No".

I would envision the "acceptable minimum" as something that would not cover long term treatments. it would be a safety net that provides more than medicaid but less than private insurance to cover those who dont qualify for medicaid but cant afford private insurance.

The whole concept of acceptable minimum is that the government has some obligation to provide for more than medicaid allows but not full coverage (which would as you accurately pointed out financially cripple the entire system). Acceptable minimum is what no person should be without. Emergency coverage, a small set number of doctor appointments per year, and coverage of prescription drugs (with some restrictions and limitations when it comes to refills). This safety net would also require built in mechanisms like HMOs have of detecting unnecessary medical practices and refusing payment to those doctors who engage in them.

So acceptable minimum safety net would indeed distribute the risk because it would limit the amount of benefit a beneficiary could receive from it. If its set up properly its a deal that is win-win. the beneficiary pays a negligable amount for minimal coverage.

the more risky venture would be the advanced coverage for self-employed and small business and so on. It would have to be set up carefully to minimize this phenomenon. It could work but it needs to be well thought out which unfortunately many policies made inside the beltway are not.

hyperflow, the original poster who asked for solutions on politicsforum, asked If full-blown nationalized health is say, $1.5T, how much would you guess this to be?

the answer is simple: this one requires people who want it to pay into it. its not a substitute for medicaid. it works like an insurance company but the risk is so spread out it works out to a fairly cheap way for people to get the bare minimum. it would work like a "government company" sort of like the U.S. Postal Service.

what does everyone think?

Questions from Ukraine Apr. 7th, 2005 @ 01:21 pm
hohol_ua
Hi!
Can you answer these questions for me and my newspaper in Kiev (Ukraine)
1. What do you think about Yushenko's first visit to America? Did you wear orange?
2. President invited people to come back to their Motherland. Is anyone going to buy tickes tomorrow?
3. How much do you need to be paid in Ukraine, in order to think of comming back there?
4. Most part of the time president spent on meeting with the public - diaspora, leaders of different funds. What behavior should Yushenko choose, to attract foreign investors to Ukrainian market? What do you think he has done for that?

uh huh... Mar. 2nd, 2005 @ 03:15 pm
sadiegremlin
So.. I read this article in the UMass Daily Collegian (a questionable source of information, at times) and think to myself.. wtf?

Let's clear up some social security stuff for Ln, shall we?

To take apart the article, and add some questions and thoughts...Collapse )

Talk to me about the pros and cons of this a little more in depth. I'd rather like to create an informed opinion and have a strong one, for once.

- Ln
Crossposted to Umass_Amherst, politicsforum, futureliberals, pltcl_solutions, endignorance, and merlynspen.

SURVEY Oct. 27th, 2004 @ 07:57 pm
apathy5
Hello, I am currently conducting a poll for a research project on the election. If

you would take the time to fill out these 3 easy questions, it would be greatly

appreciated... thank you! (crossposted everywhere)

1) If you have one, what is your party association?

2) Who do you plan to vote for this November?

3) Name one or two SPECIFIC reasons you are voting for a certain candidate.



thank you!
Other entries
» (No Subject)
I have been trying to explain to a lot of people how terrorists operate but few people seem to get it. These are a subtype of nonuniformed combatant differentiated from guerillas by their emphasis on psychological or "soft" targets rather than those of strategic value such as british troops or US communications lines. This profile of a terrorist mastermind, Zarqawi, shows clearly the MO of a terrorist and how a particularly skilled one operates, what his objectives are and how they achieve him.

http://www.sundayherald.com/45040

Policy reccomendations for this sort of thing require thinking outside the box. Having intelligence services hold seminars for the media explaining their role in the dynamic and how terrorists use them for their own purposes might be one. The government may not be able to tell them what to report or how to do it, but giving them an awareness of their role in the dynamic could make them more sensitive to the issues when choosing how to cover certain incidents.

A second one can be found in this very analysis...consulting with former terrorists to understand current ones. putting in a call to Gerry Adams or Fidel Castro or even Mahmoud Abbas could yield a wealth of good analysis.

a third one might be perhaps having psychologists study the ideological training of the operatives and develop better protocols for training the field agents who would attempt to infiltrate such organizations. to defeat such people you almost have to love them a little. much as a mild pyromaniac makes a more effective firefighter, one who appreciates and properly admires the tactical and psychological subtlety and brilliance of a terrorist makes a better counterterrorist operative.

xposted to politicsforum
» On flipflopping
For all those harping on the ridiculous Bush campaign avoidance technique of calling Kerry a flip-flopper.

In his NINETEEN years serving as a Senator in Congress John Kerry has participated in OVER 6,500 votes. His ability to transgress the stubborness that Bush exemplifies so beautifully and evolve his thinking on such matters as affirmative action, The Patriot Act, and international trade with China is noteworthy and straightforward. Kerry spoke his mind. He did not stick with the yea vote simply because he voted yea before. When presented with new information and more accurate intelligence he voted his and his state's conscience.

If you want one example OF his STRAIGHTFORWARD record in the Senate, there is proof on President Bush's campaign website. Which, I might add, is formatted precisely like John Kerry's, but with his smear campaign in the text rather than actual issue discussion.

President Bush pontificates that John Kerry flip-flopped on the Iraq war. The first segment says that he supported disarming Saddam Hussein and threatening force on Iraq. The flip-flop is merely a statement that can be misconstrued by people unfamiliar with straightforward rhetoric. The "flip-flop" quote, as stated on President Bush's campaign website is exactly this. Kerry: “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” followed with a response to a question posed by Chris Matthews. copied and pasted below.

“Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.”

To me, that states that while Kerry was in support of disarming a threatening world figure, he did NOT want to do so in spite of the lack of support by the United Nations.

If you want to point fingers at "flip-floppers" which is ridiculously pointless in politics anyway, since it could go on for years without running out of fresh material, take a look at our current President. Previous to the attacks on September 11th it was the official position of the White House that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, nor were they capable of constructing such weapons. They were NOT a threat. The entire premise that Iraq was involved in the attacks at all is preposterous and overblown misadvertisment. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is quoted as saying "I believe that Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. worthy of war." However, Bush barrels through that and declares a war anyway.

I'm done for now.
» (No Subject)
Hi I just wanted to advertise politics_debate. It's pretty much the same as this community, so please, join it!
» Send Me!
Hey y'all,

Let's help John Kerry and John Edwards equal the support of Bush's "investors." Contribute to his campaign today. Any denomination is helpful and will be put to good use.

http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/member/236513

Thanks,
Your new member
Alice
Age:22
Location: Grifton, NC
Occupation: Student and Hotel Manager

PS. Glad to be a part of the community:) Looking forward to the months ahead!
» Federal Sales Tax
Everyone hates the federal tax regime - if not all taxes. The U.S. tax code is byzantine in its complexity and elephantine in size, and I at least have doubts about its effective equity across income groups, regardless of the ostensible equity.

Any thoughts on a federal sales tax to replace the payroll, personal and corporate income taxes? It's perfectly transparent: you can't get better than a line on your receipt saying: Federal Sales Tax x%. And it would not be anywhere near the gargantuan size of the current code. Moreover, since most if not all states already tax sales, the infrastructure is in place to implement it rapidly, returning a semblance of originalist federalism (states collecting taxes for the federal government), and the IRS can be all but abolished (no more threat of audits against individual taxpayers).

Preferably, there would be no exemptions or alterations for any good, service, or entity, so as to minimize market distortions. Of course, the tax rate is debatable, but I suspect it would be about 5%, since we're talking about a larger consumer base than any state (Florida's state sales tax is about 5%, and localities can add to it).

Just a thought.
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com