Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<So programs are starved. Everyone has to 'cut back across the board'.....so maintenance is deferred. Things that need to be built are put off. Hiring needed staff is put off...or worse, staff is laid off to meet some 'efficiency goal'.....ie, budget cuts.

The gov't budget bloats and bloats. Entitlement programs eat up more and more of the budget.>>>

It's pretty hard to reconcile those 2 paragraphs. Either it is starved or it is bloated- which is it?

Look, at least we're getting some place here. It really is a matter of funding, isn't it? It is NOT whether an enterprise is private or government in nature. More than 50% of new small businesses fail- does that mean that small business should be condemned? Most fail for lack of sufficient capital. Most government programs run into trouble for the same reason. They are established with fanfare and then are gutted- usually, by the way, by those who opposed them in the first place. They then use the "failure" to "prove" that the government can't do things well.

This should be no surprise. Anyone reading right wing writings or speeches will see this strategy openly proclaimed- starve the beast. And, it works.

as an example, one of the main problems with the British Health Service is inadequate funding. Yet, look how that population has rallied to defend their system against the cheap attacks by some in our country. Australia's system is much better funded and works better as a result.

My point in joining this debate is just to point out how inconsistent and muddled the arguments are from many of those opposed to health care reform. The shame of it is that there are good, cogent reasons why we should be careful in how we go about changing our system. Personally, I don't think our culture will accept a large role for the US Government and the system would probably be inadequately funded.

I also do not believe in "free" care for most people. I would like to see some sort of co-pay and other contribution from all but the most destitute because we have a large portion of our population that would abuse the system.

I would like most to see portability, mandatory coverage (just like auto insurance), acceptance of all pre-conditions, and a cap on yearly and lifetime outlays by any person or family. This can be done by regulated private insurers as is done under the Federal employee system. I am surprised that there is not more attention given to the need for long term care coverage that does not bankrupt families or force them onto Medicaid.

Just imagine if you did not have to worry about loss of coverage when changing jobs, getting very sick, or long confinement in a nursing home. In return for such changes, I would like to see most people pay a higher proportion of routine tests and similar expenses.
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.