healthcare vs. education

[ozzy]

So I was talking to my Mom the other day, and she brought up a conversation she and my step dad had. The news was talking about the new health care plan and my step dad says that this plan is unconstitutional. His reasoning was that the constitution says that the government is to promote the general well being, not provide it. My Mom (who is against the health care plan) pointed out that the government provides schooling which is at least as important as health care. So the question is, in order to remove this paradox, should we allow the health care plan, or remove the schooling? Or if you have further insight or other solutions, what would you say?

Personally I don't know what I would say. I don't think the health care thing is a good idea, but at the same time, I think it might be worse to take away public schooling.

[Vort]

Parents are responsible for educating their children. The public school system is provided as a help to parents to achieve that goal. Parents need not avail themselves of the services of public schools. It's a completely different argument from health care.

[ozzy]

I appreciate that. I will present it to Mom next I speak to her.

[Jenamarie]

  Vort said:

Parents are responsible for educating their children. The public school system is provided as a help to parents to achieve that goal. Parents need not avail themselves of the services of public schools. It's a completely different argument from health care.

I agree. There are many many resources parents can use to educate their children, and you don't even have to be well educated yourself, as a parent, to do a fairly good job at it. (not meant to be a crack at teachers. there are SO many resources out there now for parents to use to educate their children).

However, not many people can perform surgery themselves, or know which medication will best treat their high blood pressure, and the out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive. Health Care isn't as easy of a "DIY" job. If you don't have access to it, you're up a creek.

[bytor2112]

  Quote

However, not many people can perform surgery themselves, or know which medication will best treat their high blood pressure, and the out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive. Health Care isn't as easy of a "DIY" job. If you don't have access to it, you're up a creek.

Exactly right. Let's make affordable health care available to all by allowing state to state competition for health insurance and increasing access to state medicaid programs and passing sweeping TORT reform. Doing these initial things will open the door for all and NOT financially devastate the country AND keep choice in the hands of the people. Government run health care will bankrupt the country and reduce the quality of health care for all. I would even be willing to go so far as refunding tax dollars in the form of vouchers specifically for the purchase of the health care plan of our choice.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just to clarify:

The state governments handle education, as is their prerogative. The Feds kick in hefty amounts of funding--under the constitutional spending power, Congress can throw money pretty much anywhere it wants to--and they impose certain standards for states that want to qualify for that funding. But technically each state still oversees its own educational system, and they could tell the Feds to take a hike anytime they want to. That's also (IIRC) the principle behind CHIP and Medicaid.

Bytor, where do you see constitutional precedent for denying states the right to regulate insurers who do business within their borders?

Edited December 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Jenamarie]

  bytor2112 said:

Exactly right. Let's make affordable health care available to all by allowing state to state competition for health insurance and increasing access to state medicaid programs and passing sweeping TORT reform. Doing these initial things will open the door for all and NOT financially devastate the country AND keep choice in the hands of the people. Government run health care will bankrupt the country and reduce the quality of health care for all. I would even be willing to go so far as refunding tax dollars in the form of vouchers specifically for the purchase of the health care plan of our choice.

I agree 100% on the TORT reform, but I'm uncertain about the inter-state competition for insurance policies, just because I'm not sure how it would WORK. Each state has it's own health care regulations that it's resident insurance companies have to meet, as well as different patient's rights regulations (what a customer has to do if they feel they're being unfairly denied treatment, etc.) It has, in my limitedly-educated-on-this-subject-opinion, the same potential for becoming a beurocratic quagmire as people say universal healthcare can/will become. If you're in Utah, but your insurance policy is with a company in Virginia, and you believe you're being unfairly denied coverage for emergency medical treatment you recieved while on vacation in Florida, who do you go to to appeal??

[bytor2112]

  Jenamarie said:

I agree 100% on the TORT reform, but I'm uncertain about the inter-state competition for insurance policies, just because I'm not sure how it would WORK. Each state has it's own health care regulations that it's resident insurance companies have to meet, as well as different patient's rights regulations (what a customer has to do if they feel they're being unfairly denied treatment, etc.) It has, in my limitedly-educated-on-this-subject-opinion, the same potential for becoming a beurocratic quagmire as people say universal healthcare can/will become. If you're in Utah, but your insurance policy is with a company in Virginia, and you believe you're being unfairly denied coverage for emergency medical treatment you recieved while on vacation in Florida, who do you go to to appeal??

Great points Jenamarie and I don't have a good answer. Perhaps some more stringent Federal guidelines for a National Patients Bill of Rights and more standardization of health plans. Likely, the bad companies would be weeded out via competition and Federal oversight.

I too want a solution and would SO prefer we go a bit slower and explore some of these options before we create another HUGE DC mess....like SS and Medicare...which is on track to bankrupt by 2017.

[bytor2112]

  Quote

Bytor, where do you see constitutional precedent for denying states the right to regulate insurers who do business within their borders?

I don't.....perhaps it could be intra state cooperation as opposed to denial of rights? Does constitutional precedence stop DC from doing a lot of things....particularly infringing on states rights?

[Just_A_Guy]

  bytor2112 said:

I don't.....perhaps it could be intra state cooperation as opposed to denial of rights?

That'd be a good way to do it. I wonder why it hasn't happened, though--is there some kind of federal regulation preventing it, or is it simply a matter of no one's having taken the initiative in coming up with some kind of uniform state insurance code to be ratified by each state independently?

  Quote

Does constitutional precedence stop DC from doing a lot of things....particularly infringing on states rights?

Certainly not, but if we're throwing out ObamaCare on constitutional grounds it seriously weakens our case to start pushing a similarly unconstitutional alternative.

[bytor2112]

I think it has to do with politicians wanting to have the issue more than the solution. The need for a solution was wildly popular, until the actual process began. Pelosi isn't content unless it is a government takeover. Votes, taxes and expansion of government is the primary aim.

Boehner's proposal is interesting:

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'd like to see an end to employer-based healthcare as it currently exists, where the employers have huge influence in the provision of Health benefits to their workers.

Employer-based healthcare systems encourage employers to lay off people when premiums rise, to keep everyone part-time as long as possible, and makes it so you can't be forthright about your personal life with co-workers etcetera. It also keeps you too beholden to your employer since Health Benefits are a near-essential benefit to have.

I recognize that in losing the employer component of the health-care, you also lose substantial bargaining power with the insurance companies, and I'm sorry, I don't have a solution for that one yet. My knowledge of potential or existing non-employer groups is limited.

However, in the place of employer healthcare premiums matched to the full-time employees THEY hire, I'd rather see an across-the-board tax of private business. These Healthcare taxes would be used to fund the lost employer-contributions you see in the current system The employer is still paying, but the contributions aren't attached to certain employees, and can't be avoided by laying them off or keeping everyone part-time. Private insurers remain private insurers, who in my experience, have consistently provided superior care than in the government run system I grew up in.

This opens up a whole host of implementation issues -- such as how much should each employer contribute, are their exceptions etcetera. I"m sure the accountants will love it.....but I want to see patients preserve their choice and access to private care, while removing employer's ability to control the health benefits of everyone.

Last of all, I 'd like to see the elimination of waste from the healthcare system -- it's all over the place. Like how you have to request an itemized bill, how the medical profession seems to have a "get treated now, ask questions later" attitude, which gives then "licence to bill" or "bill at will" priviledges. I requested an itemized dental bill and learned they taught me, a 35 year old man at the time, how to brush my teeth - and billed the insurance company and myself $30 for the 3 minutes of instruction.

Edited December 5, 2009 by mormonmusic

[rayhale]

  Jenamarie said:

I agree. There are many many resources parents can use to educate their children, and you don't even have to be well educated yourself, as a parent, to do a fairly good job at it. (not meant to be a crack at teachers. there are SO many resources out there now for parents to use to educate their children).

However, not many people can perform surgery themselves, or know which medication will best treat their high blood pressure, and the out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive. Health Care isn't as easy of a "DIY" job. If you don't have access to it, you're up a creek.

All you have to do is google search ‘home schooling’ and you will see lots of resources available. I read in my local newspaper that parents of home schooled children have put their children in the public school’s sports like football, baseball, etc… The parents say that since that they pay for the school, through taxes, then they should use what they pay for. The paper points out that the school system puts so many roadblocks and red tape that hopefully the parents that don’t have children in school can’t use any other service that the school provides.

[rameumptom]

Public schooling does not have to be provided by the federal government. It can, and should, be provided by states and localities. These can better determine the schooling needs for their locale.

One size fits all schooling does not help anyone. As the feds have gotten more and more involved in local schools, they have harmed more than helped.

Feds should also not get involved in administering health care. To promote both schools and health care, the feds could provide funds to the states for them. However, they should not implement nor provide health care.

One way the feds could more effectively promote both is to provide vouchers for both schools and health care insurance. In this way, the feds do not establish regulations or create new federal bureaucracies (the Education Dept has been a nightmare), but leave it to families to determine where to obtain their own education/health care. States can still establish basic standards for education minimums and health care insurance.