[gandalf]

Consumers play a limited role in the transaction. They don’t negotiate price. Decisions about care, diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, etc. — these are handled primarily by the doctor. Selection of doctor, referrals, etc. are controlled by the terms of coverage. And coverage is negotiated by employers and their agents, on behalf of their employees, with coverage ‘bundled’ in with salary and other aspects of the overall position. Healthcare is not even close to a free market.

I think I’m in favor of a patient-pays approach for routine matters, backed up by government provided universal coverage for catastrophic matters above a certain level. If government handles catastrophic, there is no need for insurers. A change like this would transform the economics of the field and result in enormous savings. Routine expenses could be funded from some sort of healthcare savings accounts.

Also, intellectual property in this country is a scam, and current practices should be gutted. The US taxpayer pays for the majority of medical research in this country through grants to Universities and the like. Big Pharma enters the process downstream and is a recipient of major taxpayer subsidies in this respect. Pharma’s ‘rights’ in the resulting medicines should be reduced and competition encouraged through the support for generics and imports.

[gandalf]

Consumers play a limited role in the transaction. They don’t negotiate price. Decisions about care, diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, etc. — these are handled primarily by the doctor. Selection of doctor, referrals, etc. are controlled by the terms of coverage. And coverage is negotiated by employers and their agents, on behalf of their employees, with coverage ‘bundled’ in with salary and other aspects of the overall position. Healthcare is not even close to a free market.

I think I’m in favor of a patient-pays approach for routine matters, backed up by government provided universal coverage for catastrophic matters above a certain level. If government handles catastrophic, there is no need for insurers. A change like this would transform the economics of the field and result in enormous savings. Routine expenses could be funded from some sort of healthcare savings accounts.

Also, intellectual property in this country is a scam, and current practices should be gutted. The US taxpayer pays for the majority of medical research in this country through grants to Universities and the like. Big Pharma enters the process downstream and is a recipient of major taxpayer subsidies in this respect. Pharma’s ‘rights’ in the resulting medicines should be reduced and competition encouraged through the support for generics and imports.

[gandalf]

Consumers play a limited role in the transaction. They don’t negotiate price. Decisions about care, diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, etc. — these are handled primarily by the doctor. Selection of doctor, referrals, etc. are controlled by the terms of coverage. And coverage is negotiated by employers and their agents, on behalf of their employees, with coverage ‘bundled’ in with salary and other aspects of the overall position. Healthcare is not even close to a free market.

I think I’m in favor of a patient-pays approach for routine matters, backed up by government provided universal coverage for catastrophic matters above a certain level. If government handles catastrophic, there is no need for insurers. A change like this would transform the economics of the field and result in enormous savings. Routine expenses could be funded from some sort of healthcare savings accounts.

Also, intellectual property in this country is a scam, and current practices should be gutted. The US taxpayer pays for the majority of medical research in this country through grants to Universities and the like. Big Pharma enters the process downstream and is a recipient of major taxpayer subsidies in this respect. Pharma’s ‘rights’ in the resulting medicines should be reduced and competition encouraged through the support for generics and imports.

[gandalf]

Consumers play a limited role in the transaction. They don’t negotiate price. Decisions about care, diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, etc. — these are handled primarily by the doctor. Selection of doctor, referrals, etc. are controlled by the terms of coverage. And coverage is negotiated by employers and their agents, on behalf of their employees, with coverage ‘bundled’ in with salary and other aspects of the overall position. Healthcare is not even close to a free market.

I think I’m in favor of a patient-pays approach for routine matters, backed up by government provided universal coverage for catastrophic matters above a certain level. If government handles catastrophic, there is no need for insurers. A change like this would transform the economics of the field and result in enormous savings. Routine expenses could be funded from some sort of healthcare savings accounts.

Also, intellectual property in this country is a scam, and current practices should be gutted. The US taxpayer pays for the majority of medical research in this country through grants to Universities and the like. Big Pharma enters the process downstream and is a recipient of major taxpayer subsidies in this respect. Pharma’s ‘rights’ in the resulting medicines should be reduced and competition encouraged through the support for generics and imports.

[gandalf]

Consumers play a limited role in the transaction. They don’t negotiate price. Decisions about care, diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, etc. — these are handled primarily by the doctor. Selection of doctor, referrals, etc. are controlled by the terms of coverage. And coverage is negotiated by employers and their agents, on behalf of their employees, with coverage ‘bundled’ in with salary and other aspects of the overall position. Healthcare is not even close to a free market.

I think I’m in favor of a patient-pays approach for routine matters, backed up by government provided universal coverage for catastrophic matters above a certain level. If government handles catastrophic, there is no need for insurers. A change like this would transform the economics of the field and result in enormous savings. Routine expenses could be funded from some sort of healthcare savings accounts.

Also, intellectual property in this country is a scam, and current practices should be gutted. The US taxpayer pays for the majority of medical research in this country through grants to Universities and the like. Big Pharma enters the process downstream and is a recipient of major taxpayer subsidies in this respect. Pharma’s ‘rights’ in the resulting medicines should be reduced and competition encouraged through the support for generics and imports.

[gandalf]

Ditto. I don’t have any specific stake in this whole healthcare debate, except to point out that currently, it’s highly inefficient and failing to a point where a solid majority of America supports reform.

This really isn’t an issue of socialism vs. capitalism. Healthcare is not a free-market. It’s highly manipulated and controlled. Anybody suggesting healthcare is free market capitalism is on crack.

It’s so bad, that in the mind of most people, the costs, quality an availability of care have become worse than what the government would provide under single-payer.

Government is the lesser of two evils… Let that sink in.

But set aside philosophical matters for a moment.

There is a SIGNIFICANT opportunity here to streamline healthcare delivery, and this would end up lowering operating costs for every business in USA that carries healthcare, as ours does. The costs are obscene. The market is broken. It’s not just GM. Get a clue.

Why would anybody oppose this?

Except for political reasons. Calculations of this nature need to take a backseat to dealing rationally with this economic crisis and putting our country back on a competitive footing.

And yes, GM should go BK. It needs to restructure.

[gandalf]

Ditto. I don’t have any specific stake in this whole healthcare debate, except to point out that currently, it’s highly inefficient and failing to a point where a solid majority of America supports reform.

This really isn’t an issue of socialism vs. capitalism. Healthcare is not a free-market. It’s highly manipulated and controlled. Anybody suggesting healthcare is free market capitalism is on crack.

It’s so bad, that in the mind of most people, the costs, quality an availability of care have become worse than what the government would provide under single-payer.

Government is the lesser of two evils… Let that sink in.

But set aside philosophical matters for a moment.

There is a SIGNIFICANT opportunity here to streamline healthcare delivery, and this would end up lowering operating costs for every business in USA that carries healthcare, as ours does. The costs are obscene. The market is broken. It’s not just GM. Get a clue.

Why would anybody oppose this?

Except for political reasons. Calculations of this nature need to take a backseat to dealing rationally with this economic crisis and putting our country back on a competitive footing.

And yes, GM should go BK. It needs to restructure.

[gandalf]

Ditto. I don’t have any specific stake in this whole healthcare debate, except to point out that currently, it’s highly inefficient and failing to a point where a solid majority of America supports reform.

This really isn’t an issue of socialism vs. capitalism. Healthcare is not a free-market. It’s highly manipulated and controlled. Anybody suggesting healthcare is free market capitalism is on crack.

It’s so bad, that in the mind of most people, the costs, quality an availability of care have become worse than what the government would provide under single-payer.

Government is the lesser of two evils… Let that sink in.

But set aside philosophical matters for a moment.

There is a SIGNIFICANT opportunity here to streamline healthcare delivery, and this would end up lowering operating costs for every business in USA that carries healthcare, as ours does. The costs are obscene. The market is broken. It’s not just GM. Get a clue.

Why would anybody oppose this?

Except for political reasons. Calculations of this nature need to take a backseat to dealing rationally with this economic crisis and putting our country back on a competitive footing.

And yes, GM should go BK. It needs to restructure.

[gandalf]

Ditto. I don’t have any specific stake in this whole healthcare debate, except to point out that currently, it’s highly inefficient and failing to a point where a solid majority of America supports reform.

This really isn’t an issue of socialism vs. capitalism. Healthcare is not a free-market. It’s highly manipulated and controlled. Anybody suggesting healthcare is free market capitalism is on crack.

It’s so bad, that in the mind of most people, the costs, quality an availability of care have become worse than what the government would provide under single-payer.

Government is the lesser of two evils… Let that sink in.

But set aside philosophical matters for a moment.

There is a SIGNIFICANT opportunity here to streamline healthcare delivery, and this would end up lowering operating costs for every business in USA that carries healthcare, as ours does. The costs are obscene. The market is broken. It’s not just GM. Get a clue.

Why would anybody oppose this?

Except for political reasons. Calculations of this nature need to take a backseat to dealing rationally with this economic crisis and putting our country back on a competitive footing.

And yes, GM should go BK. It needs to restructure.

[gandalf]

Ditto. I don’t have any specific stake in this whole healthcare debate, except to point out that currently, it’s highly inefficient and failing to a point where a solid majority of America supports reform.

This really isn’t an issue of socialism vs. capitalism. Healthcare is not a free-market. It’s highly manipulated and controlled. Anybody suggesting healthcare is free market capitalism is on crack.

It’s so bad, that in the mind of most people, the costs, quality an availability of care have become worse than what the government would provide under single-payer.

Government is the lesser of two evils… Let that sink in.

But set aside philosophical matters for a moment.

There is a SIGNIFICANT opportunity here to streamline healthcare delivery, and this would end up lowering operating costs for every business in USA that carries healthcare, as ours does. The costs are obscene. The market is broken. It’s not just GM. Get a clue.

Why would anybody oppose this?

Except for political reasons. Calculations of this nature need to take a backseat to dealing rationally with this economic crisis and putting our country back on a competitive footing.

And yes, GM should go BK. It needs to restructure.

[gandalf]

[quote=flu]I’m waiting for the “50 Federal Bundled Plan”:

Get 50% off the entire purchase price when you combine a loan modification, GM/Chrysler/Ford Vehicle purchase, and insurance from AIG.
[/quote]

LMAO, Flu that’s fucking hilarious…

[gandalf]

[quote=flu]I’m waiting for the “50 Federal Bundled Plan”:

Get 50% off the entire purchase price when you combine a loan modification, GM/Chrysler/Ford Vehicle purchase, and insurance from AIG.
[/quote]

LMAO, Flu that’s fucking hilarious…

[gandalf]

[quote=flu]I’m waiting for the “50 Federal Bundled Plan”:

Get 50% off the entire purchase price when you combine a loan modification, GM/Chrysler/Ford Vehicle purchase, and insurance from AIG.
[/quote]

LMAO, Flu that’s fucking hilarious…

[gandalf]

[quote=flu]I’m waiting for the “50 Federal Bundled Plan”:

Get 50% off the entire purchase price when you combine a loan modification, GM/Chrysler/Ford Vehicle purchase, and insurance from AIG.
[/quote]

LMAO, Flu that’s fucking hilarious…

[gandalf]

[quote=flu]I’m waiting for the “50 Federal Bundled Plan”:

Get 50% off the entire purchase price when you combine a loan modification, GM/Chrysler/Ford Vehicle purchase, and insurance from AIG.
[/quote]

LMAO, Flu that’s fucking hilarious…

[Author]

Posts