Obama's Universal Healthcare Question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KMAN, Mar 10, 2009.

  1. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.
     
  2. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,154
    Thanks Received:
    10,166
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,724
    on a scale of 1-10?


    Zero
     
  3. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,064
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,123
    If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    First of all, I believe you have been misinformed about the Obama plan.

    There is some minor market competition (same as right now, acually) on the supply side under the proposed Single Universal Health Insurance.

    But in a completely socialized HC delivery system, which is what I assume you think Obama is suggesting, the incentive to do that job well is the same as with every other government program, KMAN.

    The implied threat of loss of office by elective process or (much more unlikely) through revolution.
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Inheritance taxes, of course.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. twogreen2c
    Offline

    twogreen2c VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    222
    Thanks Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    Ratings:
    +84
    The death tax and less social security payments will give the government the net gain they are looking for. Older and retired folks are looked to as a liability to these creeps.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269

    So does that mean I will be able to stay on my employer's insurance program? And will the cost be similar?

    I think we all know that once we implement this there will be no way to get rid of it so I'm not sure I agree about re-election being an incentive... but could be.
     
  8. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?
     
  9. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    For arguments sake, there can and should still be plenty of competition. Doctors would remain as private practitioners, not public civil servants. The government would only handle the administrative end of the equation.

    If we look at most metropolitan areas, we have multiple hospitals that offer all the same services. They are in competition with each other yet they don't have enough patients. Most doctors work through more than one hospital. The cost of running these hospitals is astronomical, and when they are constantly duplicating services, it drives the costs even higher.

    At the same time, many rural hospitals only offer limited services because they can't come close to affording what those in metropolitan areas do due to a lack of patients. Yet, those people should have as good of care as anyone. Or should everyone just move to the cities?

    I understand the argument against government healthcare. However, the fact is that we already have government healthcare to a great extent. It just isn't run effectively. However, it is the reason we have as much choice as we do.

    If government had zero involvement in healthcare, and doctors and hospitals had to compete strictly on people's ability to pay, we would have shit for healthcare. More than half the hospitals would be forced to close, and probably the same percentage of doctors would close shop also.

    Right now we have around 50 million people who don't pay for their healthcare, yet the rest of us pay for them through increased premiums and increased taxes to cover them through government run programs. If those people were forced to pay something, it would help reduce costs. Many of these uninsured are younger people who don't feel they need insurance and choose not to pay for it.

    The answer to reducing healthcare costs involves both government and the private sector. It's not one or the other. Look at it this way; we pay double what any other country does for healthcare, other than a couple exeptions. Yet we do not have double the benefit. Am I saying we should be able to cut costs in half? No. Countries that pay half of what we do have many issues with poor service. They should be paying more. At the same time, we should be able to cut costs somewhat and reduce the runaway increases. If we do not, we will no longer be able to afford healthcare period.

    Here is a simple fact. In 1970, 7% of GDP went to healthcare in the US. We are now around 16% of GDP, and the increase in costs continues to surpass inflation by a good margin. If the increases don't stabilize, we will again double from 16% to 30% of GDP. If this happens, it will collapse our entire economy. Tough choices must be made, and it might even mean a slowing down of some new advancements. But the fact is, we have to be realistic as to what we can and can't afford.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2009
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,793
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955

    I've seen polls that claim that 82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care, and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%.

    If these studies are true, what is the reason for the $600 Billion Obama Healthcare Proposal, other than socialization?
     

Share This Page