Universal Healthcare?

[Bern80]

I would rather give the money I'm paying now for health insurance to an organization that is actually concerned with maintaining the health of the american public rather than solely making a profit.

Assuming for a second the government actually does care about your health, that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything. Again you'll just be exchanging one set of problems for another. Instead of people waiting because they can't afford it, they will be waiting because service isn't available. Healthcare is a service and like any service if you reduce the price of it, demand will go up.

 

[manifold]

...that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything.

What about the military? Law enforcement? Would you really feel safer if national defense and law enforcement were privatized?

 

[Bern80]

What about the military? Law enforcement? Would you really feel safer if national defense and law enforcement were privatized?

Are they as efficient as they could be? Probably not. How about our school system, or SS, or even your vaunted medicare?

If you're comfortable with government run health care given it's bearuacratic record, then more power to ya.

 

[manifold]

Are they as efficient as they could be? Probably not. How about our school system, or SS, or even your vaunted medicare?

If you're comfortable with government run health care given it's bearuacratic record, then more power to ya.

I was merely responding to your assertion that the government is terrible at running everything. Two of the biggest, most important things they run seem to be doing alright IMO. And you still didn't answer the question.

 

[Bern80]

I was merely responding to your assertion that the government is terrible at running everything. Two of the biggest, most important things they run seem to be doing alright IMO. And you still didn't answer the question.

To answer honestly, no I wouldn't. I fully admit there are things that government has the greatest responsibility to. There are certain duties government has and in a perfect world that would be what out taxes go to. Those, which you listed, are essentially protecting the citizens of the country because again it is not reasonable to expect a sole individual to able to hold a perp accountable for a crime, or fight a house fire, or thwart the attack of a terrorist. Those are things government should do. That is different from the question of whether they are doing those things efficiently in terms of infrastructure and finance.

P.S. You didn't answer my question either.

 

[manifold]

To answer honestly, no I wouldn't. I fully admit there are things that government has the greatest responsibility to. There are certain duties government has and in a perfect world that would be what out taxes go to. Those, which you listed, are essentially protecting the citizens of the country because again it is not reasonable to expect a sole individual to able to hold a perp accountable for a crime, or fight a house fire, or thwart the attack of a terrorist. Those are things government should do. That is different from the question of whether they are doing those things efficiently in terms of infrastructure and finance.

P.S. You didn't answer my question either.

It is also not reasonable to expect a sole individual to administer their own brain surgery.

As for the question I didn't answer, are you talking about the things the government hasn't run well? If so, I agree, they've gotten a lot of things wrong. I just don't think by itself that's reason enough to suggest they can't run anything well.

 

[manifold]

For the record:

I absolutely do not support any healthcare solution proposal that merely layers government beauracracy on top of what currently exists. As long as insurance companies and drug companies are allowed to retain so much control and influence over the matter, things will only get worse, not better. And therein lies the rub: They've got so many politicians in their back pockets that I'm almost certain we are all just a bunch of ineffectual message board dillholes debating a thing for which we have no power to change. And that kinda sucks.

 

[Bern80]

It is also not reasonable to expect a sole individual to administer their own brain surgery.

Not the same thing at all. I think you know that. As a said there is element of government duty to its citizens. One of them is NOT performing surgery.

As for the question I didn't answer, are you talking about the things the government hasn't run well? If so, I agree, they've gotten a lot of things wrong. I just don't think by itself that's reason enough to suggest they can't run anything well.

It is inherrent in government that spending will be inefficient as well as administration. History has shown that over and over, but you're okay with them taking care of your health?

How can you say they are more responsible for your health than you are. You have mentioned in posts things about civilization advancement and what not. Civilizations don't grow and become stronger by being babysat by their governments which is what our government is turning to.

 

[bennylava]

One of my good friends lives in Toronto, and I've heard stories of how long they have to wait at the ER. At the same time, I've heard the same stories from people here waiting at the ER. It just depends on what day it is, what time of year it is, for how long you have to wait.

I think the biggest cost in healthcare is the pharmaceutical industry. We could start out by tackling that behemoth and forcing it to stop wasting money on TV advertising and on bribing doctors with kickbacks and free vacations.
The cost of some prescriptions is absolutely outrageous. There is no reason for a tube of anti-eczema cream to cost $500 a month. What is it made out of, gold?

I find it suspect that one of my prescriptions by brand name costs 90 bucks or more a month, but somehow the generic version costs $4 a month. There is something very wrong there.

Let's control the pharmaceutical industry first, that would help everyone out. Unfortunately they've brainwashed the american people and seem to have control of the FDA as well.

 

[jillian]

Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society. It isn't in our best interest to have an underclass that uses hospitals as primary care physicians. It isn't in our best interests as a society for people not to take their children for well visits, vaccinations and all the other things they need.

It's simply wrong, in a country with such wealth for people not to be able to get medical care.

People with money will always be able to pay for their own doctors and obtain care when they want. And just because government is helping to pay the bill does not mean government is providing medical care.

It's obscene that 50% of all bankruptcies in this country result from catastrophic illness and that millions of people are uninsured now who WERE insured in 2000.

On a final note, I'd point out that the Constitution guarantees only the MINIMUM standards to which individuals are entitled.... not the max.

 

[manifold]

Not the same thing at all. I think you know that. As a said there is element of government duty to its citizens. One of them is NOT performing surgery.



It is inherrent in government that spending will be inefficient as well as administration. History has shown that over and over, but you're okay with them taking care of your health?

How can you say they are more responsible for your health than you are. You have mentioned in posts things about civilization advancement and what not. Civilizations don't grow and become stronger by being babysat by their governments which is what our government is turning to.

I don't think they are more responsible for my health than I am. I never said they were. I also haven't taken a firm position on whether I endorse the idea of government run UHC. I'm still consolidating, and refuting were applicable, the arguments advanced on both sides. And I wholeheartedly dismiss this notion that government run UHC is somehow a violation of the rights of the well to do. That particular argument holds absolutely no water.

As for the subject of civilization, I do not think that making the collective decision that we will not allow any of our citizens to suffer without proper medical treatment is the same thing as saying we all need to be babysat by the government. That is a stawman argument.

 

[Shogun]

Okay, then lay out for me a practical, fair business plan for the private sector supplying our roads and maintening them.



Well we could start malpractice insureance which I believe the government required are doctors to have.......

Do you live in a state with no toll roads or something? Have you driven through toll roads before? I can use every arguement that conservatives use regarding the free market preogative of health care on the issue of publicly funded roads. Have any DOTs shrunk? Are their products, the roads, a better vlaue than a private entrepreneurs who owns his road? Wouldn't the cost go down if we let some draconian CEO balance profit with value? Wouldn't the gov stop taking YOUR money for roads that YOU shouldn't have to pay for if you don't use them? Who needs highway handouts, right? Transportation welfare? Socialism of the road? The gov doesn't own railroads, eh? Why can't private business run DOTs BETTER than the gov? All of these arguements can be turned around even though you accept the role the gov plays in maintaining roads. Is it then fair to assume that you are a commie because you can fathom giving road mantenance responsibility to the gov in order to preserve a minimum standard and wide applicability?



So, no malpractice insurance.. and then what. A doctor fucks up and kills your wife and then washes his hands like a drunk driver without even minimal liability insurance? Should victims of malpractice just be stoic about a mistake and take it like a man? What would replace this regulation of medical performance? I mean, it's not like taking a car in and some mechanic fucking up your transmission, eh? I can fathom reduction of rates for docs who have a history of minimal safe performance but what are the reprocussions of removing malpractice insurance despite the hypothetical consumer benefit (that, again, never happens quite like promised. I'm still waiting for a single example of deregulation lowering consumer prices in any tangible, long term fashion)

 

[Steerpike]

Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society.

That's true.

I don't think mandatory national health care is in our best interests. I think we should extend it to those who want and need it, but still allow to obtain private insurance if they like, or simply to pay in cash if they wish. Seems to me a good compromise for getting people covered and still preserving high standards of quality and incentives for innovation, etc. I don't like the idea that the government thinks its ok to force people who are perfectly happy with their medical care to give it up. Sounds like a good way to eventually settle at the lowest common denominator, which we do quite a bit of in this country these days.

 

[Shogun]

That isn't a flaw at all. It's that purpose that gives people jobs. that creates healthy competition and it's that competetion that provides us with quality goods and services.

And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between. Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs. So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work. HEALTHY competition? yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition. Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft? Quality goods and services? Like Vista? Like current gas prices?

Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?

 

[Steerpike]

And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between. Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs. So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work. HEALTHY competition? yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition. Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft? Quality goods and services? Like Vista? Like current gas prices?

Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?

Hey I've been using Vista for over a year with no trouble. Eats up unnecessary amounts of RAM though.

 

[Shogun]

Assuming for a second the government actually does care about your health, that doesn't change the fact the government is horribly inefficient at running pretty much everything. Again you'll just be exchanging one set of problems for another. Instead of people waiting because they can't afford it, they will be waiting because service isn't available. Healthcare is a service and like any service if you reduce the price of it, demand will go up.

sooo... capitolist business cares MORE about our health than Profit margins? o rly? Horribly inneficient? which is it, government roads suck or dont? it seems that you are straddling a fencepost here.

Indeed, reducing the price causes demand to go up in reflection of a society that NEEDS wider applicable health care. Do you usually go buy tampons just because they are marked down in price? Im going to assume the answer is no because you don't have a need for tampons quite like this nation NEEDS wide applicable health care. I'm betting that qa lower price in road building supplies won't cause anyone to start building roads out in the middle of the desert anytime soon.

 

[Shogun]

Hey I've been using Vista for over a year with no trouble. Eats up unnecessary amounts of RAM though.

and I hope you continue to have success with it... BUT, who can deny the masses downgrading back to XP because vista is a beast? How would you say this lackluster product is the result of M$'s aggressive market strategy that eliminates competition rather than compete with better products? Hell, the only major slugger since 3.x has been 95, 98 upgrade and xp. Most of which are the product of forcing companies like Dell to use ONLY their OS. That doesn't strike me as competition and vista is the result that proves it. In 3 years vista will be the latest ME.

there are plenty of reviews by people smarter than I regarding cpus that will paint a similar picture.

 

[jillian]

That's true.

I don't think mandatory national health care is in our best interests. I think we should extend it to those who want and need it, but still allow to obtain private insurance if they like, or simply to pay in cash if they wish. Seems to me a good compromise for getting people covered and still preserving high standards of quality and incentives for innovation, etc. I don't like the idea that the government thinks its ok to force people who are perfectly happy with their medical care to give it up. Sounds like a good way to eventually settle at the lowest common denominator, which we do quite a bit of in this country these days.

I don't think there's any plan that's being considered which would force me to change doctors. Right now, my husband and I are both able to get health insurance through our employers. We use my plan because his takes too big a chunk out of his salary. When I use out of network physicians (which I do for certain things) I have to pay out of pocket and each of us has a $250 per year deductible before it's covered. And even after the deductible is met, we get 80% of "reasonable and customary". So, for a $600 doctor's bill, I got back about $80.

Something's wrong with that. And it's because the insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in this country, along with the AMA and pharmaceutical industry.

My parents spend a fortune on prescriptions. Why? Because our government put a plan in place in which it allowed the pharmaceutical industry to dictate that it had no power to negotiate prices.

And the best... I learned in the course of my employment that hospitals charge more to people who are UNINSURED. Does this make any sense to you? There's no free market forces in place to control that. They charge what they want.

So no, I don't think it's in our best interest for everyone not to have health care coverage. And making such a plan "optional" takes away the funding for it since only the people who can't afford any coverage would participate.

 

[Steerpike]

and I hope you continue to have success with it... BUT, who can deny the masses downgrading back to XP because vista is a beast? How would you say this lackluster product is the result of M$'s aggressive market strategy that eliminates competition rather than compete with better products? Hell, the only major slugger since 3.x has been 95, 98 upgrade and xp. Most of which are the product of forcing companies like Dell to use ONLY their OS. That doesn't strike me as competition and vista is the result that proves it. In 3 years vista will be the latest ME.

there are plenty of reviews by people smarter than I regarding cpus that will paint a similar picture.

I think Vista will become the standard (unless Microsoft comes up with a new OS) but not because of fair competition. The reason I think it will become the standard is that gamers typically drive the upgrade market. Drive massive portions of it, in fact. Not only is MS getting ready to quit releasing XP (in June) but they're releasing DirectX 10 only for Vista. There are already a few of games out that use DirectX 10 and before long anyone who wants a really cutting edge game is going to have to use it. And then people who want to play it are going to have to have Vista. So people will upgrade even if they don't really want to.

 

[Steerpike]

So no, I don't think it's in our best interest for everyone not to have health care coverage. And making such a plan "optional" takes away the funding for it since only the people who can't afford any coverage would participate.

I disagree. I've heard that argument before, but not seen numbers to back it up.

In fact, for many years Holland had exactly that program (people above a certain income level couldn't participate in the national health care program) and they never had funding issues. They changed their system a few years back, though, to quasi-privatize the national system because of poor care received.