So will we finally get Socialized Medicine?

[Neubarth]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where would that be in the Constitution?

 

[Neubarth]

Where would that be in the Constitution?

Taint!

 

[Bern80]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. From the conservative practical side of things it may make more sense to unburden industrty. One of my main issues with that is cheaper health care most definately does not equate to quality health care. That is a trade off that will need to be examined. Really your argumebnt is about flaws in the system which I think should be looked at being corrected. Work toward finding other solutions before are wholly enifficent and wasteful government gets involved.

Socialized medicine makes very little sense from the ideological perspective of conservativism because part of conservatisism is self accountability and personal responsibility and socialized medicine in a nutshell says someone else is more responsible for your health then you yourself.

 

[Amanda]

I'm conservative and I don't oppose socialized medicine. I think everyone should be taken care of, human life is important.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where would that be in the Constitution?

Taint!

That's not very nice, it was a simple question.

 

[editec]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

Actually, that's about the best reason, in this economic system we have, that one can think of to fully socialize medicine.

We ALL understand the problems that come from socializing medicine, of course.

Not the least of of is which that the HC providers might object to it if they can't make very healthy salaries.

Now the question comes to us should we FULLY socialize medicine, what number of the current practicioners of HC will elect to vote against that move with their feet.

And the question which follows from that prsumption is do we really need them, and if so, how much do we need them?

I am of the opion that if we had the time, we could create a system whereby we paid for people's training, gave them a very good quality of life (in comparison to most other workers I mean, not as good as most of them enjoy now) and still provide adaquate HC for people, too.

But that plan is a TWENTY YEAR plan, and the transition period is fraught with hardship for all of us.

Perhaps single payer univsersal HC insurance is the transition, but I honestly think that that system will bankrupt the nation before we can migrate to a fully socialised HC system.

 

[auditor0007]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. From the conservative practical side of things it may make more sense to unburden industrty. One of my main issues with that is cheaper health care most definately does not equate to quality health care. That is a trade off that will need to be examined. Really your argumebnt is about flaws in the system which I think should be looked at being corrected. Work toward finding other solutions before are wholly enifficent and wasteful government gets involved.

Socialized medicine makes very little sense from the ideological perspective of conservativism because part of conservatisism is self accountability and personal responsibility and socialized medicine in a nutshell says someone else is more responsible for your health then you yourself.

First of all, the idea that universal healthcare is free is completely off base. The fact is that everyone pays for it, which is something that doesn't happen with our current system. Under our current system, only those who choose to pay for it, either as a company benefit or by purchasing a private policy, pay for it. Those who do not have insurance coverage get free health care and those of us who do have health insurance pay for those who don't. That is just one of the reasons that we pay double what people throughout the rest of the world pay.

In countries where they have universal healthcare, everyone contributes something. In fact, even foreign tourists help pay for those nation's healthcare. Also, these systems of healthcare are not weighted by age as they are with our private system. One of the reasons companies are anxious to rid themselves of older workers in the US is that their health insurance rates increase based on the average age of their employees. This is the main reason it is so difficult for someone over the age of 50 to find employment.

Last of all, this idea that our quality of care is so much better than countries with universal healthcare is absolute nonsense. All you need to do is look at life expectancy rates. Ours is below almost every other country with universal healthcare.

And here is the kicker. With universal healthcare, the idea to make someone healthy again, as soon as possible, is the goal, because a healthy person reduces the cost of healthcare. With our system, doctors and hospitals compete for more and more business. It is the way they make money; the more the merrier. So keeping someone sick is beneficial to doctors and hospitals. I'm not saying every doctor and hospital tries to keep people sick, but they will look for any possible thing they can to charge for. In many cases, they run one unnecessary test after another to pad their bills. Healthcare is one business where saving the patient money is not the way to increase one's business. Therefore, the idea of competition does not reduce costs as it does in other markets of a free society.

 

[auditor0007]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

Actually, that's about the best reason, in this economic system we have, that one can think of to fully socialize medicine.

We ALL understand the problems that come from socializing medicine, of course.

Not the least of of is which that the HC providers might object to it if they can't make very healthy salaries.

Now the question comes to us should we FULLY socialize medicine, what number of the current practicioners of HC will elect to vote against that move with their feet.

And the question which follows from that prsumption is do we really need them, and if so, how much do we need them?

I am of the opion that if we had the time, we could create a system whereby we paid for people's training, gave them a very good quality of life (in comparison to most other workers I mean, not as good as most of them enjoy now) and still provide adaquate HC for people, too.

But that plan is a TWENTY YEAR plan, and the transition period is fraught with hardship for all of us.

Perhaps single payer univsersal HC insurance is the transition, but I honestly think that that system will bankrupt the nation before we can migrate to a fully socialised HC system.

I read an article a short while back that discussed the movement of American doctors to Canada. Many American doctors are choosing to move their practices to Canada because there they can concentrate on being doctors. They know how much they will make, and they don't constantly have to spend their time fighting with the insurance companies to collect for their services. It makes for a better quality of life for those that choose this path. That is not to say that all doctors are leaving the US because of our current system or even that the majority want to see a change in that direction. However, it does make one think about it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm conservative and I don't oppose socialized medicine. I think everyone should be taken care of, human life is important.

Then why would you leave it in the hands of the government? That seems down right oxymoronical. Government does nothing "well". It does some things passably and most things it makes a horrific mess of. So if human life is important, why would you doom it to government ineptitude?

 

[Truthmatters]

It only does things horribly when you have a completet republican control.

You guys always say that gov cant do anything right and then prove it once you get elected.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm conservative and I don't oppose socialized medicine. I think everyone should be taken care of, human life is important.

Then why would you leave it in the hands of the government? That seems down right oxymoronical. Government does nothing "well". It does some things passably and most things it makes a horrific mess of. So if human life is important, why would you doom it to government ineptitude?

The government is not some demon. It is the people we have chosen working to provide necessary services and securities to the general population. If those who are elected screw it up that bad, then we have an obligation to ourselves to elect others who will make it work properly. If we can't accomplish that, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As a Neo Fascist and the founder of the American Growth Party, I firmy believe that one of the major roles of the government Is to provide a well trained, well educated and healthy workforce for American Industry.

That is right, when you get conservative enough you can see the need for Government to provide the health coverage that we previously have burdened business with.

Under our old system, underwriting health care for the worker and his family has cost American Industry heavily. These medical expenses add to product price and make most of our products more expensive in the world market place. We have to compete with other companies around the world that do not have to pay for their employee's health care.

It is time to take that burden off of American Industry so we can have full employment in this country.

I think there is a role for government, but the appropriate role is not providing universal health care.

The proper role would be fixing the things that it has artificially broken. Health insurance needs to be provided state by state. Horribly inefficient. Instead, the Federal government could put us all into one pool. Insurance companies could that offer insurance to that pool, or get the hell out of the game. No more cherry picking. No more pre-existing conditions, nothing. You want to offer health insurance, you offer it to everyone at the same fixed rate. So, health insurance companies become a regulated industry. Government can assure them a small profit on their 300 million policies.

Next. The health insurance companies are only allowed to provide 80% of insurance. For the balance, each person will maintain a health care savings account. This will be funded either by tax credits, if you don't have the money (mean tested). Or, self-funded with tax breaks, if you do have the money. How the money gets there is less important than that HSAs get used. Why? Now you are actually responsible for "shopping" for you health care. You must spend "some" of your own money to get health care. That creates a link that has not been present to this point between the person who pays and the person who benefits.

This will help the health care sector to act more like a real market. It should spur some competition and information seeking activity unlike the current situation. Who pays the health insurance companies? You can pay it through taxes or through employers. It doesn't really matter. Since they are a utility (essentially) they derive no real benefit from either choice. We derive no real benefit from either payment system either.

 

[Truthmatters]

The pattern of Rs destroying our economy is now set in stone folks.

The history is going to be hard to erase and ignoring it only makes you look more foolish.

The Rs have given us the two worst economic conditions in this countrys last 100 years.

When they Rs control the country the American people are harmed.

 

[nukeman]

Do most of you think that the reason for the rise in heathcare cost is due to the Drs. wanting more money??????????

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm conservative and I don't oppose socialized medicine. I think everyone should be taken care of, human life is important.

Then why would you leave it in the hands of the government? That seems down right oxymoronical. Government does nothing "well". It does some things passably and most things it makes a horrific mess of. So if human life is important, why would you doom it to government ineptitude?

The government is not some demon. It is the people we have chosen working to provide necessary services and securities to the general population. If those who are elected screw it up that bad, then we have an obligation to ourselves to elect others who will make it work properly. If we can't accomplish that, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

That, my friend, is a very naive response. That presupposes that there is not strong machinery in place to prevent you from working your will on elected officials. People with a lot of money have invested a lot of money in forming working relationships with people who vote for a living. (Congressmen et al.) They are willing to spend more money to ensure that some "lame brain" with no skin in the game except they live here, will not screw up the relationships they have spent so much money time and effort cultivating.

As far as the bureaucracy goes. Well, those folks are my friends and neighbors. They are awesome people. But, you have to understand, the internal workings of the government were not created to accomplish anything. Well, I amend slightly, somebody created it with the intent that something be done. But, as far as the people who administer these programs are concerned, they don't care whether they work or don't. It isn't their "baby." Their focus is on making sure that all the reporting is properly. Making sure, to the best of their efforts, that there is no fraud or abuse (that can be tracked back to them knowing about it) in the system and that every last cent is spent before September 30.

That doesn't mean they don't care about their jobs, some certainly do. But, it is to say they don't care, in most cases, about the object of what they are doing. It wasn't made by them, it was not thought of by them, nobody even knows who does care about it. So, as long as "progress" however the program measures that, is being made, everyone is happy. The person who reports to Congress can go and say progress is being made. The Congress person can be mildly put off that "enough" progress is not being made. But in most cases, nothing will be done and everyone goes merrily along. Nothing criminal, nothing evil. Just horrific inefficiencies in a culture of inefficiency.

You want to do things better in government? You would have better luck trying to work through your coffee break in a union shop.

 

[Amanda]

I'm conservative and I don't oppose socialized medicine. I think everyone should be taken care of, human life is important.

Then why would you leave it in the hands of the government? That seems down right oxymoronical. Government does nothing "well". It does some things passably and most things it makes a horrific mess of. So if human life is important, why would you doom it to government ineptitude?

We leave a lot of important services to government. What's a better answer? Certainly not the current system.

 

[Meister]

One solution would be to have tax credits to the families that need the insurance, and tax credits to the insurance companies who would represent them. Keep it in the private industry for maximim affect. The government really would screw it up like social security, and medicare. At this level, it would be suicide for many who would have to depend on our government. In the end, the government really doesn't care about the individual, they prove that everyday. What they do care about is us depending more, and more on them, this is not a good thing.

 

[Amanda]

One solution would be to have tax credits to the families that need the insurance, and tax credits to the insurance companies who would represent them. Keep it in the private industry for maximim affect. The government really would screw it up like social security, and medicare. At this level, it would be suicide for many who would have to depend on our government. In the end, the government really doesn't care about the individual, they prove that everyday. What they do care about is us depending more, and more on them, this is not a good thing.

If there's a way to keep it in the private sector AND make sure EVERYONE gets medical care then I'm all for it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

One solution would be to have tax credits to the families that need the insurance, and tax credits to the insurance companies who would represent them. Keep it in the private industry for maximim affect. The government really would screw it up like social security, and medicare. At this level, it would be suicide for many who would have to depend on our government. In the end, the government really doesn't care about the individual, they prove that everyday. What they do care about is us depending more, and more on them, this is not a good thing.

If there's a way to keep it in the private sector AND make sure EVERYONE gets medical care then I'm all for it.

There's already a system in place for that. Blue Cross. Add a little government subsidy for major medical (hospitalization) and preventative screenings, a modest prescription plan, for the uninsured and low income, but force ALL to participate and pay premiums, no exceptions, aggregated under Blue Cross, and you have universal health care....