Why can't the gov. of the U S?

Question

put a cap on medical care when hospitals charge $20 for a box of Kleenex? Now Bush wants to cut ss and medicare. Instead would it not be better to regulate what can be charged??? This is crazy. What happens to the people of the US when Bush spends all our money on the war in Iraq?

Answer 1

The government is the reason a hospital charges $20 for kleenex. Fortunately, Bush is cutting medicare/medicaid. It was projected for an 8% increase, Bush is cutting that to a 7% increase. Thus, medical expenses will only increase 7% this year. That is still more than twice the inflation rate.

When you throw more money at a problem without increasing your capacity to deal with that problem, the service providers already in existence are only too happy to raise their prices to absorb that extra funding.

I submit lowering the barriers for entry into the medical fields (caps on malpractice lawsuits, subsidies for medical schools, etc) would increase the supply of health care providers, pushing down overall health-care costs.

Answer 2

So what you really are saying is Bush should socialize medicine rather than finishing what we started. Is this not a slippery slope argument comparing one to the other to make your point. Could you not address one or the other?

If you are asking about medical care. The answer is it will never be able to be government funded or socialized. The medical industry is so huge and always been privatized that they will not shift to government control. If for example doctors, hospitals,drug companies and insurance companies would have to take a cut in income many would quit and do something else. This would then damage the high quality of care we enjoy in the US as quality is driven by money. As it is all over the world. Believe it or not even China is privatizing their medical system. They cannot afford a socialized system of medicine any longer.

Even looking at the bigger picture even lawyers would be affected. If the government ran medicine then they could not be sued for poor care or malpractice. A million or so lawyers then would have to find another vocation as well.

I could go on an on about this and the effects of socialization of medicine in the US. But people who have an agenda to fill do not listen to reason or others opinions. I believe are just fishing for Bush bashers and not really trying to stimulate conversation that might lead to a solution for a problem.

I do agree though that medical costs on many levels are out of hand. Government regulation is not the answer. As consumers we can infulence a market, and we should.

Answer 3

I agree with you. The Government needs to cap what hospitals can charge for incidentals. Did you know that a Doctor can look into your hospital room, say "How are you?" and charge that as a visit? Bush is asking for 135 billion more to spend on the debacle in Iraq, when the working poor can't even get health insurance! The government needs to get a reign on out of control costs, my thought was why not work with private insurance companies by providing health insurance to the working poor by having them pay monthly premiums on a sliding scale? At least some money would be coming in , instead of none at all! When the uninsured poor go to hospital ERs for health care and never pay the bills, the hopsitals recoup their losses thru taxpayers and overcharging! Something needs to be done!

Answer 4

The US Gvt took in 1,538 Billion dollars in tax revenue in 2006. Is Bush truly spending all of this on the war in Iraq? I think what would be a good idea is to examine what has led to the High cost of health care. One that I know of is the high cost of Medical Liability and Malpractice insurance. Should we limit the amount of money a person can sue for?

Answer 5

You do realize that the so called cost of the war includes the amount of money we would already spend for a standing army don't you? Bush isn't going to do anything with SS or health care costs now that his party lost the majority which was lost by his inept leadership. Get it?

Answer 6

The problem is that corporations exist by law only to make a profit for the stockholders. That was not always the case. In the beginning, corporations existed for a purpose: to build cars, or to build and run railroads or to sell products they made. Corporate forms still require a statement of purpose, but the law has evolved to the point where maximum return on investment is the only purpose. That in turn has created a environment in which "non-performing" corporations become targets for acquisition, so profit-making is the only survival tool.

We could change the law to require corporations to serve their publicly-stated purpose even at the expense of profit, but it will not happen with the current political situation. We will need to change how elections are funded and eliminate the two major political parties.

Answer 7

If no more illegal aliens were sponging off the USA
health care would be free or a the least much lower in cost
Blame Bush for the illegal alien invaders not health care probs as the health care probs have been around for ever

Answer 8

They could if they really wanted to. The pols go to Washington and forget who sent them...they get all wrapped up with the Lobby groups who wine, dine and treat them royally. The begin to think they are.

Answer 9

you make a very valid point..

But this has been going on for many years.. Doctors who walk into your room while in the hospital get 350.00 to look at your chart and smile at you.. And tell you your fine..

LOL.. go get em!!..

Answer 10

bush tried hard to save social security and the liberals had a fit, they must control our lives at all costs. So when SS fails it will be the liberals to blame.