DescentBB

and HE did say this(ref-Congressional Record)
"An all-directions reform of our health care system--so that every citizen will be able to get quality health care at reasonable cost regardless of income and regardless of area of residence--remains an item of highest priority on my unfinished agenda for America in the 1970s.

In the ultimate sense, the general good health of our people is the foundation of our national strength, as well as being the truest wealth that individuals can possess.

Nothing should impede us from doing whatever is necessary to bring the best possible health care to those who do not now have it--while improving health care quality for everyone--at the earliest possible time."


Richard Milhous Nixon, March 1972



.....freaking Communist Community Organizer.....

Nothing wrong with the goal. But don't pretend you have a solution then implement a stack of blank checks for Congress to use in place of the absent solution/legislation you told us was coming.

Which he didn't do....

Not one word about insurance, or government…interesting…

umm, Spidey, the speech referred to expansion of insurance(Medicaid), and it was all about GOVERNMENT doing what it could.

At least Nixon was willing to discuss it.

callmeslick wrote:umm, Spidey, the speech referred to expansion of insurance(Medicaid), and it was all about GOVERNMENT doing what it could.

Yea, but not in the way you would seem to imply, in fact his ideas were far more in line with my ideas.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3757

Just one little excerpt…and that is a good read.

“To nationalize health care as some have proposed, and thus federalize medical personnel, institutions and procedures-eventually if not at the start-also would amount to a stunning new financial burden for every American taxpayer.
The average household would pay more than $1,000 a year as its share of the required new Federal expenditure of more than $80 billion each and every year. Such a massive new Federal budget item would run counter to the temper of the American taxpayer.
Also, such a massive new Federal budget item would run counter to the efforts of this Administration to decentralize programs and revenues, rather than bring new responsibilities to Washington.
And, finally, such a massive new Federal budget requirement would dim our efforts to bring needed Federal actions in many new areas--some of which bear directly on health, such as environmental protection.”

And a point I have been making for years about supply and demand.

--In inner cities and in many rural areas, there is an acute shortage of physicians. Health screening under various government programs has found that appalling percentages of young people, mostly from deprived areas, have not seen a doctor since early childhood, have never seen a dentist and have never received any preventive care.
--General practitioners are scarce in many areas and many people, regardless of income or location, have difficulty obtaining needed medical attention on short notice.
--Our medical schools must turn away qualified applicants.

So if Nixon had figured out the relationship between insurance and high prices…I would have to say he was a genius, but his program also has this flaw.

$1000 per taxpayer per year for national healthcare? Would this mean we and/or our employers wouldn't have to pay easily 10-20+ times that amount per year for private insurance (not to be confused with actual healthcare, which costs a huge extra amount on top of the insurance)? Yes? No? Maybe?

Krom wrote:$1000 per taxpayer per year for national healthcare? Would this mean we and/or our employers wouldn't have to pay easily 10-20+ times that amount per year for private insurance (not to be confused with actual healthcare, which costs a huge extra amount on top of the insurance)? Yes? No? Maybe?

If that means something like my family of four pays $4000 per year and in return we have a National Health Care Policy card to use at the doctors office and hospital just like we use a credit card today (no insurance) then sign me up. In fact I'll register as a Democrat and vote for them every time if they deliver that.

But if it means we are forced to pay $4000 to be 'cared for' like the VA cares for its patients then there will be big trouble.

Krom, those numbers were from like 45 years ago, and I’m not sure would apply anymore even adjusted for inflation, and such.

$1000 in 1972 is about $6000 today. They should have enacted it back then before everything got all crazy.

Wikpedia wrote:In 1972, disposable personal income was determined to be $4,129...

Yea, I expected someone to do a straight linear inflation adjustment, now do it with the following…

The fact that health care outpaces inflation.
Ageing population requiring more health care.
Additional care needed for 3 wars. (VA just started covering for Agent Orange)
Changing ratio of workers to dependent.
Additional new health procedures.
People leaving the work force.
Other demographic changes.
Etc etc etc…

It's not an inflation adjustment, it's the CPI. And all those thins you mentioned would be worked out slowly, over time, just like every other program -- so that argument it invalid. When was the last time you paid for something today based on prices 40 years from now? Also, how do you know all those things were not already considered in the original $1000 estimate? You don't.

That price was what it would cost every taxpayer to provide government supplied health care*, not the buying power of the dollar. There is a huge difference, and would be no small task to figure out, so just converting 1972 dollars into today is invalid.

*Whatever was envisioned at the time.

....................

In other words, yes your CPI index may be correct, but the amount of money the government would have to pay out to provide health care would not be linear*, and would change over time, and a simple CPI can’t possible account for that.

So the cost per taxpayer might be astronomical by now.

*In regards to the CPI

....................

And one more way to look at it…

When you go shopping the CPI can tell you how many groceries you can buy with your dollar compared to 1972…but it can’t tell you how many groceries you will need to buy.

Spidey wrote:*Whatever was envisioned at the time.

And that right there ^ is all you need to say. It doesn't matter if they envisioned things like wars and changing demographics because those would have been adjusted for gradually over time with taxes and market forces. Again, when is the last time you paid for something today based on prices 40 years from now?

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:*Whatever was envisioned at the time.

And that right there ^ is all you need to say. It doesn't matter if they envisioned things like wars and changing demographics because those would have been adjusted for gradually over time with taxes and market forces. Again, when is the last time you paid for something today based on prices 40 years from now?

That is sort of the way they price gasoline...

Sorry, tangent from off the wall.

Try making some damn sense vision, I can’t even figure what the hell you are saying at this point.

Maybe you should re read the thread, again without the hangover, and try to get on the same page.

Spidey wrote:So the cost per taxpayer might be astronomical by now.

Nope. Just like other programs, small adjustments are made every year, and the market responds. Take education for example. The cost of education is outrageous compared to 1972 yet there is no shortage of people going to school. Of course, more regulation in all these areas would stop the truly insane increases that far exceed standard rises in the cost of living, but whatever. Unchecked capitalism. Yay. Keep banging the drum of 'gubmnt bad, corporate monopolies good."

A nice graph.

vision wrote:but whatever. Unchecked capitalism. Yay. Keep banging the drum of 'gubmnt bad, corporate monopolies good."

You have the wrong person...