Obama's Universal Healthcare Question

[KMAN]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

on a scale of 1-10?


Zero

 

[Zoom-boing]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

 

[editec]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

Inheritance taxes, of course.

 

[twogreen2c]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

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.

 

[KMAN]

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.

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.

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.

 

[KMAN]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

 

[auditor0007]

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.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?

 

[editec]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?

I'd like to see those polls.

 

[auditor0007]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverege. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

 

[Meister]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

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.

Hmmm, I'm feeling "Soylent Green" these days.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverege. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

First, I have seen studies that compare the US to other nations, and give the amount per capita at about $5000.

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

The last time the issue was explored, Ms. Clinton's ideas lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?

I'd like to see those polls.

Yesterday you claimed that you had never seen stats that I posted along the lines of " the top 1% of wage earners have 22% of the wealth, yet pay 40% of the taxes."

I gave you the WSJ article by Laffer and Moore, and you never commented on the veracity of same.

So, for clarification, if I provide stats along the lines of "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%," should I be anticipating a post, from you, agreeng that the Obama Healthcare Proposal is ideological more than anything else?

 

[WillowTree]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

they'll have you cloned 50 times baby!

 

[WillowTree]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

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.

they'll decide you are too old for a pair of glasses, teeth, and a new hip,, gone baby gone.

 

[Gurdari]

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.

The same incentive to provide good policing, firefighting, etc. The government is people.
And is more accountable than private enterprise - when people are engaged in democracy - as private for-profit entities care about profit... and if they don't need yours, they don't need you.

 

[WillowTree]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

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?[/QUOTE]





Chic! 600 billion is just the down payment,, his cost his going to run in the un as yet foreclosed trillions..

 

[Gurdari]

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

.

It's cheaper per person to have universal care. It doesn't leave people out in the cold if they're poor either, and the rich get treated like the rest of us (for the most part - they can still fly to another place if they so desire, or jump the queue if they are a celebrity athlete).

For the rest of us up here - we wouldn't switch for private care.