| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Daschle as Secretary of Health |
| 2008-11-23 |
| Change we can believe in has some old, familiar faces. United States President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Tom Daschle as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 if patients had to pay market prices, self rationing and market forces would take care of it. the main reason for most of this in US is that the end consumer does not pay the market price. costs are shielded form the user by hidden forces like lower wages from the employer etc. you copay never changes, so why shop around? no market forces at all and the perception of 'it doesn't cost me anything' means over use of a scarce resource that is overpriced beyond sensible market sustainability. |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2008-11-23 23:24 |
| #17 But someone still has to pay for services before Medicare. If a 70 year old is working, insurance will have to pay or out of pocket or Medicaid if too poor. No society can afford to spend 30-40% of GDP on health care. The only other alternative is a blanket denial of care (not likely) or rationing of health care, prioritize treatments and deny the low priority. That means dead people, esp the old as their treatment will buy little extra time and they have already had a chance at a full life. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 22:18 |
| #16 all we need to do is shift the minimum age fro medicare up to say 72 or 75 and enough will die before eligibility to make it work. especially with the overall downturn of quality and preventative treatments as rationing ala Canada and England kicks in. |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2008-11-23 22:06 |
| #15 The majority of a lifetime's medical expenses are in the last few years of life, esp last 6 months. Putting off retirement won't materially affect that. Even if it did, the graphs at the link show the population over 65 exploding and they will expect their Medicare. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 20:20 |
| #14 That is exactly correct Jolutch, and recovery is nowhere in sight or "gov't guaranteed." Having to postpone one's retirement for 5-10-15 years is not a pleasant prospect for most people, democrat or republican. Even if the market recovers next Spring as some are saying, I'm not convinced people (boomers anyway) are going to remain in it for a possible repeat of what we are now experiencing. I just don't think they trust the system any longer. Investor strategy may have taken a significantly different course. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-11-23 18:10 |
| #13 Ed, One of the things you are probably not taking into account is the number of boomers who will NOT be retiring early because of the market meltdown. Anyone who had a ten year or less timeframe for bailing has now seen that jump back up to 15 or more. If we inflate after this crash it will be even worse. |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-11-23 18:04 |
| #12 Beso, that's a rule with donks, but you don't see the forest while concentrating on one tree that has the familiar shape and form. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-11-23 17:58 |
| #11 Nope, I don't think so Spike. Appears what we may be seeing is classic made for media, empty suit Hollywoodistan donk tokenism. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-11-23 17:36 |
| #10 Obamarx needs scapegoats after the whole system collapses. That is why he populated his staff with clintonistas. When this part of the play ends, heads will roll. Mayhaps even literally. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-11-23 17:31 |
| #9 All these Clinton retreads are like a nightmare to a Bandag process worker. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-23 15:44 |
| #8 will begin |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 14:59 |
| #7 You won't have a choice. Baby boomers still begin reaching retirement age in 2011. The medical bill for them will exceed Social Security outlays or any other group of budget outlays. 16-17% of GDP today, 20% in 1016, 30% in 2040. Get the picture? If not, this may help: Population Pyramid Summary for United States |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 14:59 |
| #6 Gosh, ed, maybe that's why our health care is so much better. Rationing? That sounds awfully "big government" to me. I'll pass if you don't mind. Now here's a blast from the past regarding former Senator Daschle which helps explain why he's the former senator. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-11-23 14:50 |
| #5 or government payed health care limited by a set pool of taxpayer money. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 11:28 |
| #4 The US already spends 16-17% of GDP and rising, while other advanced nations spend 10% or less with a higher proportion of old folks. There is nobody In the US keeping a lid on the money jar and demand to stay alive is infinite. This is not sustainable and will collapse on itself and take the country's finances (what little is left) with it. Rationing is coming either by restrictive health insurance policies, limited personal finances or government a set pool of taxpayer money. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-23 11:25 |
| #3 The Canadians at least had the US to go to for competent and swift medical care. God knows where we will have to go after a Nationalized Health Insurance System is passed. And any system designed by Teddy K and with Tiny Tom running it, one can have no doubts about its overwhelming cost being matched to incomparable incompetence. |
| Posted by: Omiting the Younger9947 2008-11-23 11:00 |
| #2 could be worse - Teh One could've selected someone competent to implement National Health Care. Tom Thumb will just be "disappointed" often |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-23 08:24 |
| #1 One National Health Plan coming up. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-11-23 07:50 |