I thought this was an interesting point of view:
We would not have this issue if we eliminated the excessive government intrusion into the medical field, costs in the medical field would be greatly reduced, which in turn would not allow these issues to become major problems. Compassion starts when a office visit costing $100 is reduced to $20.00 per office visit. When you create wealth, you are serving the poor. Eliminating Government intrusion into the medical marketplace will vastly decrease costs to the poorest among us. While I believe the intentions of the individuals who support this idea are noble, they rarely think of the end effects of their proposals on the people they are claiming to “help.”
Regulations are intrusions into how dialysis providers do business. Do you believe dialysis providers would spend more money on quality of care if there was no oversight? The last article in the ProPublica series brought up just how well dialysis clinics function without oversight when it reported on the serious gaps in Medicare surveys of dialysis clinics – as much as 10 years in CA. Government intrustion through Medicare surveys is one way to assure that dialysis patients are getting the quality healthcare that regulation requires.
If there was no government “intrusion” into the dialysis industry through Medicare payment for dialysis do you believe dialysis providers would reduce their charges (often 10x Medicare’s reimbursement) to other patients and their payers, which would save money in out-of-pocket costs and insurance premiums? If Medicare wasn’t paying for ESRD care, taxpayers could save $26.8 billion annually (USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report). Perhaps that money could be spent on other things that would benefit more people or allow greater tax cuts. However, the people that currently depend on Medicare to receive dialysis couldn’t take advantage of government spending in other areas or tax cuts because they’d be dead.
[QUOTE=Beth Witten MSW ACSW;20449]Regulations are intrusions into how dialysis providers do business. Do you believe dialysis providers would spend more money on quality of care if there was no oversight? The last article in the ProPublica series brought up just how well dialysis clinics function without oversight when it reported on the serious gaps in Medicare surveys of dialysis clinics – as much as 10 years in CA. Government intrustion through Medicare surveys is one way to assure that dialysis patients are getting the quality healthcare that regulation requires.
If there was no government “intrusion” into the dialysis industry through Medicare payment for dialysis do you believe dialysis providers would reduce their charges (often 10x Medicare’s reimbursement) to other patients and their payers, which would save money in out-of-pocket costs and insurance premiums? If Medicare wasn’t paying for ESRD care, taxpayers could save $26.8 billion annually (USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report). Perhaps that money could be spent on other things that would benefit more people or allow greater tax cuts. However, the people that currently depend on Medicare to receive dialysis couldn’t take advantage of government spending in other areas or tax cuts because they’d be dead.[/QUOTE]
Where in the Constitution do you find that the Government has the right to interfere with how dialysis providers do business? The Constitution protects us from all kinds of Government intrusion, it is not there to be a living or breathing document. The Constitution provides methods for adding or changing amendments, as the times change. When I hear that the Constitution is a living and breathing document, I think of unelected judges using unelected judicial power to impose their beliefs on society or us. If you want to change the Constitution to allow these expansions of government power, convince your fellow citizens to make this a permanent change to the Constitution.
It is easy for the slick politicians to play Santa Claus with the money of other people. Look at the current state of Europe, that is what is going to happen if we do not reform excessive government spending. The laws of Economics do not change, not for Congress, Obama, or anyone else for that matter. Tax cuts enable a better life for the poorest among us. There is a long and defined record of tax cuts generating more tax revenue for the Federal Government starting under President Coolidge in the 1920’s. Increasing tax revenue would allow for the foundation funding dialysis to become much more solid.
Stanford Economist Thomas Sowell:
"Guess who said the following: “It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi?
Not even close. It was Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under conservative Republican President Calvin Coolidge.
What was Mellon’s point? That high tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. “It is time to face the facts,” he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of “the flight of capital away from taxable investments.”
This was all said in 1924, in Mellon’s book, “Taxation: The People’s Business.” Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts."
First, if government regulations were eliminated, the cost of dialysis would radically decrease and there would be more money for dialysis, especially the sickest patients. The cost of In-Center dialysis is outrageous, so much so, that the government could pay for staff assisted dialysis in the home, 6 days per week, nocturnal, and it would still be cheaper than In-Center dialysis. Now, what is more compassionate, In-Center dialysis OR staff assisted Nocturnal dialysis in the home, 6 days per week? We both know the answer. The cost of dialysis is high because of government regulation, regulation equals cost, each and every time. Eliminating government regulation would enable the vast majority of dialysis consumers to obtain private insurance and greatly increase the chances of developing kidney belts, such as AWAK, etc. Government does not create wealth, it takes wealth from the people who have earned it, pure and simple. I have a video starring Ronald Reagan and the current Democrats, now, you decide what you would like, watching this video. It has been stated by the Democrats that it is objective of the current health care bill to control people. If you disbelieve, watch this:
“Those Voices Don’t Speak for the Rest of Us”
This is the Democrats in their own words.
You got your wish when Congress extended the tax cuts to all, including the wealthy. Let’s see how they choose to spend the extra money and how much they donate to help the poor and sick or whether they continue to blame the poor and sick for being poor and sick.
Richard Nixon, a Republican, signed the legislation that extended Medicare coverage to people on dialysis. I rest my case.
Ok, now, I have my case. Under President Carter, the Top 1 percent were paying 19.8 percent of the nation’s tax bill. Under the Bush tax cuts, the Top 1 percent are paying 40 percent of our nation’s tax bill. Knowing facts such as these, should thrill someone like you. Under tax cuts, the rich are paying more and more of our nation’s tax bill. I hate to inform you that Richard Nixon or “Tricky Dick” was not a Reagan Republican. In truth, Richard Nixon was a Modern Liberal, supporting Wage and Price Controls, Affirmative Action, and many other policies that led to the recession of 1973-1974. In 1960, I would have not voted for Richard Nixon, I would have voted for John Kennedy, Kennedy had excellent economic policies, Kennedy cut taxes and that policy led to great prosperity. Democrat Grover Cleveland had immense respect for our Constitution, quite honestly, I wish he was President. So, does Obama get to decide how much money someone is allowed to earn in a year, who died and left him as a dictator? The objective of Obama and his party is not to help individuals, it is to control them, very simple. Getting people off of In-Center dialysis and on Nocturnal dialysis will increase the amount of tax revenue into the Treasury and help future dialysis patients. As for dialysis, I do not want to turn anyone away, despite what you and some of your friends might believe. I believe in the people on dialysis and I also believe that they have much contribute to our society, despite what people running our In-Center clinics might think, to those people, we are people to be controlled at every single step of the way. I know that I believe in freedom and you believe in government control and honestly, our belief systems will never meet. I have never, ever heard anyone blame an individual for being on dialysis. The only place I have ever heard that is from your friends in the clinics, sound familiar to you? Quite honestly, I have never heard such hypocrites in my life. What I hear from Americans, regardless of economic status, is compassion, not the nonsense and babble, that I have head from people in the industry. These people have a mind that is a closed box, the attitude is, “We know everything and people on dialysis are a bunch of boobed fools.” Reduced tax rates increase wealth, which increase tax revenues, Economics 101. I have tried to inform as many folks as possible about the benefits of home dialysis, that they do not have to live their lives, suffering without enough dialysis, this industry is probably one of the cruelest in America, bar none. With jobs and increased wealth, dialysis patients can seriously push for comfort and nocturnal dialysis. In my view, every dialysis consumer deserves the compassion of nocturnal dialysis. So, if you would like, you can have your obsessive government control, the rationing of dialysis, government control freaks who watch our every move and I will have freedom, private insurance, one low flat tax rate, freedom from control freaks, and the compassion of living a normal life as much as possible. Most of your post is a stereotype that someone put in your head, years ago. I want society to be wealthy enough to afford nocturnal dialysis in the home for everyone, I could care less about the rich. You seem to have an obsession with the rich. Giving dialysis patients the power to have private insurance will change the dialysis industry faster than any government edict. If you are going to make sure that we have enough money to pay for the Nephrologists and Nurses, you must generate wealth thru a low flat tax rate. We have to pay them with increased wealth, not with good intentions, good intentions do not and have never paid the bills. We need people that are rich so they can generate money to pay for nocturnal dialysis. The more wealthy and high income earners we have, the more that we can help the poor, it is that simple. If we do not have enough Nurses, who in the world is going to take care of us when we need to go to the hospital? Under your type of system, there will not be enough nurses, that will start a pay war, in other words, the Nurses will go to the highest bidder, that will help the rich, I thought you hated the rich, why would you support a policy to help the rich? The laws of Economics do not change for anyone. By the way, your good friend Obama wants to eliminate deductions for the wealthy, hurting charities like the Kidney Foundation, pretty smart move?
"U.S. charitable giving reached a new record in 2006, an estimated $295.02 billion, according to Giving USA 2007, the yearbook of philanthropy published by Giving USA FoundationTM and researched and written by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
Donors gave an estimated $11.97 billion more than in 2005, a 4.2 percent increase (1.0 percent adjusted for inflation) over a revised estimate for 2005 of $283.05 billion. The 2005 estimate includes nearly $7.4 billion in extraordinary disaster relief giving. If disaster gifts are excluded from the 2005 total, giving in 2006 rose 6.6 percent (3.2 percent after adjusting for inflation).
“It is impressive that giving continued to rise in 2006, especially following the unprecedented levels of disaster giving in 2005,” said Richard T. Jolly, chair of Giving USA Foundation. “America’s 1.4 million charitable and religious organizations provide a huge range of services that improve lives, from meeting immediate needs to funding medical research or creating endowments to assure the future of arts or educational institutions.”
The record-setting gift amount includes $1.9 billion that Warren Buffett paid in 2006 as the first installment on his 20-year pledge of more than $30 billion to four foundations and also includes donations from hundreds of millions of Americans, as well as gifts from charitable bequests, foundations and corporations."
Guess which country gives the most to charity, The United States of America. (The Economist)
How do you explain the difference in charity giving from Vice President Cheney giving 30 percent of his income to Obama giving 5.8 percent of his income. By the way, Conservatives give much more in donations to charity than Liberals, I hate to destroy your world, but, facts are facts. The Left talks a great game about charity, but, sadly, for them, actions speak louder than words
Mark M, B.A. Government and Economics