Why are people afraid of socialized healthcare?

[Revere]

very untrue. if you have a preexisting condition they will offer you insurance options, but your premiums are so high they are unaffordable.

why is there such disdain for the idea that everyone should have access to affordable health care? are we really that selfish?

You're premise is false, that's why. It isn't that people don't want health care to be affordable. The issues are that government won't accomplish that goal in the long run. The system also needs to be a fair one. Poeple are charged more for having pre-existing conditions because they are at greater health risk and it is not fair to someone perfectly healthy that they have to pay the same rate in premiums as someone who is of high risk.

That isn't to say the system doesn't need work. One thing that could be examined is what exacty constitutes a pre-existing condition. I think it's a little broad. I had cancer 25 odd years ago, but am a perfectly healthy person today, still my cancer would be considered a pre-existing condition I believe. Your premiums ought to be based on your health now, not what it was some time ago.

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

Wrong. It's not worth destroying a system that works for the majority of Americans to deal with a handful of outliers.

GM was not "saved."

 

[boedicca]

The comparison to bailing out GM is apt, but not in the way you intend.

GM was "bailed out" by screwing over creditors who received pennies on the dollar for their investments, diverting the creditors money to the benefit of the unions, and then an engineered financial fraud, with an assist by the IRS with $45B of undeserved operating losses for tax reduction purposes, to benefit Wall Street.

ObamaCare will be this on steriods for the Health Care Industry.

 

[Common Sense]

You're premise is false, that's why. It isn't that people don't want health care to be affordable. The issues are that government won't accomplish that goal in the long run. The system also needs to be a fair one. Poeple are charged more for having pre-existing conditions because they are at greater health risk and it is not fair to someone perfectly healthy that they have to pay the same rate in premiums as someone who is of high risk.

That isn't to say the system doesn't need work. One thing that could be examined is what exacty constitutes a pre-existing condition. I think it's a little broad. I had cancer 25 odd years ago, but am a perfectly healthy person today, still my cancer would be considered a pre-existing condition I believe. Your premiums ought to be based on your health now, not what it was some time ago.

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

Wrong. It's not worth destroying a system that works for the majority of Americans to deal with a handful of outliers.

GM was not "saved."

so if the system works, why do we pay the highest costs for least amount of services in the entire world?


in response to GM, what was the alternative? let them fail, go into bankruptcy, lost 1.4 million more jobs and fall deeper into recession?

 

[Common Sense]

The comparison to bailing out GM is apt, but not in the way you intend.

GM was "bailed out" by screwing over creditors who received pennies on the dollar for their investments, diverting the creditors money to the benefit of the unions, and then an engineered financial fraud, with an assist by the IRS with $45B of undeserved operating losses for tax reduction purposes, to benefit Wall Street.

ObamaCare will be this on steriods for the Health Care Industry.

can you provide proof to any of these claims?

other than the $45 B, 22 of which was paid back yesterday btw.

 

[boedicca]

in response to GM, what was the alternative? let them fail, go into bankruptcy, lost 1.4 million more jobs and fall deeper into recession?

False choices.

If GM had gone into bankruptcy in a proper, non-government bail out interference style process, the union contracts would have been rewritten and the business sold of to a more suitable party that could run the operations efficiently.

This was a pay off the unions to maintain non market compensation and to Wall Street who gobbled up fees and spread on the IPO, during which, btw, the U.S. government sold shares at a huge loss to the taxpayers.

 

[manu1959]

Why are people afraid of socialized healthcare?

If ya have to ask... you'll never understand the answer.


Just name me one thing the gov't does right....

**** things up....

 

[manu1959]

in response to GM, what was the alternative? let them fail, go into bankruptcy, lost 1.4 million more jobs and fall deeper into recession?

False choices.

If GM had gone into bankruptcy in a proper, non-government bail out interference style process, the union contracts would have been rewritten and the business sold of to a more suitable party that could run the operations efficiently.

This was a pay off the unions to maintain non market compensation and to Wall Street who gobbled up fees and spread on the IPO, during which, btw, the U.S. government sold shares at a huge loss to the taxpayers.

not to mention they used your tax dollars to do it and the average us citizen was not even allowed to buy the initial ipo shares.....

 

[Common Sense]

in response to GM, what was the alternative? let them fail, go into bankruptcy, lost 1.4 million more jobs and fall deeper into recession?

False choices.

If GM had gone into bankruptcy in a proper, non-government bail out interference style process, the union contracts would have been rewritten and the business sold of to a more suitable party that could run the operations efficiently.

This was a pay off the unions to maintain non market compensation and to Wall Street who gobbled up fees and spread on the IPO, during which, btw, the U.S. government sold shares at a huge loss to the taxpayers.

the choice to sell the share i actually believe should have been postponed. they actually only sold half of their shares so they still control a significant part of the company. so they still can cooperate their loses in the future. but as Harry Wilson said, they sold their shares so that they could get out of the car business and recover a significant portion of the tax payers monies.

Harry Wilson, former adviser to President Barack Obama's Auto Task Force, and a conservative republican went on CNN and said there was no other choice but to save GM. there was no viable buyer who could have taken over GM simply waiting in the wings. the union contracts were rewritten anyways, so your claim there is false, 1.4 million jobs were saved. if you dont realize how interconnected GM was your missing the point. GM does not manufacture all of the parts that go into their vehicles. they outsource a vast majority. has GM gone under, all of these small businesses would have then lost a major portion of their revenues. how can you say that by letting GM fail, none of these people would have been affected? can you should proof of one potential buyer who put in a bid for GM?

When a stock IPOs, it has to be run through a bank regardless of who the company is. the bank then charges a fee to the buyer of the shares for the transaction. this is how they make their money. are you disagreeing with this business model? im not sure how you can get angry at a bank on this issue, there are plenty of other things banks have done that are far worse than charging fees for stock transactions.

 

[Immanuel]

very untrue. if you have a preexisting condition they will offer you insurance options, but your premiums are so high they are unaffordable.

why is there such disdain for the idea that everyone should have access to affordable health care? are we really that selfish?

You're premise is false, that's why. It isn't that people don't want health care to be affordable. The issues are that government won't accomplish that goal in the long run. The system also needs to be a fair one. Poeple are charged more for having pre-existing conditions because they are at greater health risk and it is not fair to someone perfectly healthy that they have to pay the same rate in premiums as someone who is of high risk.

That isn't to say the system doesn't need work. One thing that could be examined is what exacty constitutes a pre-existing condition. I think it's a little broad. I had cancer 25 odd years ago, but am a perfectly healthy person today, still my cancer would be considered a pre-existing condition I believe. Your premiums ought to be based on your health now, not what it was some time ago.

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

The one problem that I see with the wait and see if it actually works or not idea is that once government has destroyed the private insurance industry and taken total control of our health insurance it is too late to go back. There can be no mulligan.

And the number of jobs that will be lost when government does this will be catastrophic to our economy.

Immie

 

[Common Sense]

You're premise is false, that's why. It isn't that people don't want health care to be affordable. The issues are that government won't accomplish that goal in the long run. The system also needs to be a fair one. Poeple are charged more for having pre-existing conditions because they are at greater health risk and it is not fair to someone perfectly healthy that they have to pay the same rate in premiums as someone who is of high risk.

That isn't to say the system doesn't need work. One thing that could be examined is what exacty constitutes a pre-existing condition. I think it's a little broad. I had cancer 25 odd years ago, but am a perfectly healthy person today, still my cancer would be considered a pre-existing condition I believe. Your premiums ought to be based on your health now, not what it was some time ago.

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

The one problem that I see with the wait and see if it actually works or not idea is that once government has destroyed the private insurance industry and taken total control of our health insurance it is too late to go back. There can be no mulligan.

And the number of jobs that will be lost when government does this will be catastrophic to our economy.

Immie

where in the bill is it actually stating the there will be a single payer plan with the government fulling in control? it doesn't. that would be the only way the government would have total control, and as we all know that will not happen with this new bill. there is so much fear mongering going on with this new law is blows my mind.

answer me a few questions, hopefully will statistics or proof to back you claims.

1 - how will this lead to job reduction?
2 - is the government telling doctors how to treat their patients?
3 - is the government taking over control of hospitals and making private insurers close their doors?
4 - is everyone who will be getting insurance paying for it? (subsidized or not, paying even a partial premium is still paying for it)
5 - other than the mandate to purchase coverage, can you name an exact portion of the bill you disagre with?
6 - how exactly this legislation will "destroy" healthcare?

 

[Greenbeard]

Because I would rather have a direct doctor-patient relationship than to have Dr. Berwick decide I am not worthy of care.

You need to take your head out of whatever right-wing talking head's ass that it's up and try thinking for yourself. Berwick is one of the foremost advocates for patient-centered care in the United States. Period. And he has been for years. He has spent years advocating for exactly the patient empowerment you seem to want (but, of course, you suddenly won't want when you realize he's its leading proponent).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSauhroFTpk]Berwick on the experience of care[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

The one problem that I see with the wait and see if it actually works or not idea is that once government has destroyed the private insurance industry and taken total control of our health insurance it is too late to go back. There can be no mulligan.

And the number of jobs that will be lost when government does this will be catastrophic to our economy.

Immie

where in the bill is it actually stating the there will be a single payer plan with the government fulling in control? it doesn't. that would be the only way the government would have total control, and as we all know that will not happen with this new bill. there is so much fear mongering going on with this new law is blows my mind.

answer me a few questions, hopefully will statistics or proof to back you claims.

1 - how will this lead to job reduction?
2 - is the government telling doctors how to treat their patients?
3 - is the government taking over control of hospitals and making private insurers close their doors?
4 - is everyone who will be getting insurance paying for it? (subsidized or not, paying even a partial premium is still paying for it)
5 - other than the mandate to purchase coverage, can you name an exact portion of the bill you disagre with?
6 - how exactly this legislation will "destroy" healthcare?

First, you need to look at the title of this thread. It is "why are people afraid of socialized health care?" So, we have to assume that the thread is about socialized health care not today's plan. Therefore, my earlier reply assumes we are talking about socialized health care.

This bill did not contain that provision and this is why... The President realized that could not be accomplished in the first step. He knew that was too much of a bite to pull off all at once. His words were "fifteen to twenty years". This bill was only the first step... if they get their way, there will be more steps taken.

how will this lead to job reduction?

How many people do you think the Health Insurance Industry employs and if we go to a single payer system, do you honestly believe all or even a few of them will find jobs in the field?

Sorry, to answer your question with a question, but it was the best answer I could come up with.

is the government telling doctors how to treat their patients?

You need only look at Medicare today to see what government does. The government tells doctors today what they are willing to pay for given procedures. If the doctor is going to treat Medicare patients he/she has no choice but to accept what the government is willing to pay. This is one reason we have so much Medicare fraud today.

Now think about what will happen when the government is the only payer in the system. Doctors will be told to perform heart transplants for $35,000 or some figure. In effect, doctors will work for the government and accept what they government is willing to pay.

I don't know about you, but I would be very uncomfortable allowing the government to set my revenue schedule in all cases.

is the government taking over control of hospitals and making private insurers close their doors?

If Single Payer becomes the way this country provides health care then the answer to that is Yes. If Single Payer health care becomes fact, private insurers will be a thing of the past and all those jobs will be lost.

is everyone who will be getting insurance paying for it? (subsidized or not, paying even a partial premium is still paying for

Good question and as far as I know the answer is no. Under this plan is someone on Unemployment or Welfare going to have to pay for health insurance or go to jail? How can you force an uninsured single mother who does not have a dime extra in her budget and does not now have health insurance to purchase health insurance in 2014? You simply can't do that, can you? Would you?

other than the mandate to purchase coverage, can you name an exact portion of the bill you disagre with?

Actually that is not a fair question, because this thread is not talking about the current bill. You are limiting my reply to this particular bill and that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about socialized health care not the health care bill that was recently passed.

However, the mandate is my biggest pet peeve.

Under a socialized plan, I am concerned that the government will be in control of doctor's revenue and expenses. I am concerned that it will drive good doctors out of the profession. I am concerned that the government will be able to raise our taxes without limits to pay for this plan and/or add the shortfall to the deficit thus forcing our great grand children to foot the bill.

I'm sure I could go on further, but that should suffice to answer your question.

how exactly this legislation will "destroy" healthcare?

Again, this legislation is not the subject of this thread.

Please see my answers to your last question and let me know if they are not sufficient to continue this discussion.

BTW: let me thank you for the way you answered my post in a pleasant and thought provoking manner.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

its good criticize about government intervention, but maybe we should wait to see if it has the desired affect instead of simply saying it wont work. tons of people said bailing out GM wouldnt work, but as we saw yesterday, it actually did and saved an approximate 1.4 million jobs in the process. if youre going to simply criticize it doesnt do anyone any good. you need to offer solution to the problem instead of simply saying it wont work. we can have disagreement and argument with out getting angry and name calling. its called being civil.

First and foremost that government running the system won't work isn't just saying it for the sake of saying it. There is evidence that government does not effectively run entitlement programs. Medicare is insolvent, social security is insolvent. The best predicter of future behavior is past behavior. I have no desire to 'see what happens' as you suggest because the evidence and good ol' common economic sense says this isn't going to work out real well. You want to know what will happen with government running the system. Here is one experts opinions

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0h5DBn4DJc[/ame]

and im also in disagreement with your premium being based on your health at that current point in life. i think a simpler solution would be to charge the same for everyone all the time. then if costs rise, you can raise the rates across the board. by picking and choosing which groups to raise rates on you push those people out of the market and it become a strain on the system when they are forced into government subsidized programs such as medicare and medicare. it also puts a strain on the hospitals that have to treat them regardless of their ability to pay.

Everyone paying the same thing for health coverage only works if government is charging for it via taxes. Otherwise the market is going to do it's thing and that is EXACTLY what needs to be allowed to happen to drive down prices. Everyone paying the same also doesn't give a lot of options to you the consumer. Presumably if we're all paying the same thing we all have the same coverage. Well maybe I don't want the same coverage you have. Maybe you don't deserve the to pay the same thing I do i you've decided to smoke all your life for example.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If we the people would act like a real community (unity) we would help each other and have socialized HC. I have heard arguments against it but frankly those same arguments could be used against public roads and that (public roads) seems to work well for everyone.

In a free country individuals have a choice as to whether or not they want to pull together as a community. The government forcing you to isn't freedom.

You either want to live in a free society or your don't. That means accepting the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

 

[Greenbeard]

In a free country individuals have a choice as to whether or not they want to pull together as a community. The government forcing you to isn't freedom.

The choice you get under our form of government is to whom you'd like to delegate decision-making authority, except in cases where your state allows something like initiative and referendum. You get to vote for the person who will represent you (but even then, elections certainly don't require unanimity--there are people entering office in a few months who received less than 40% of their constituency's vote).

What you're saying is that "freedom" is the exact opposite of governance--vesting decision-making authority on anything in someone other than yourself is antithetical to freedom. And that may be true. But if that's the strict definition you want to use, there's no use in arguing that we've ever been or were ever intended to be a free country. Because even the notion of a political division like a country doesn't jibe with what you're saying.

 

[bigtalker]

If we the people would act like a real community (unity) we would help each other and have socialized HC. I have heard arguments against it but frankly those same arguments could be used against public roads and that (public roads) seems to work well for everyone.

In a free country individuals have a choice as to whether or not they want to pull together as a community. The government forcing you to isn't freedom.

You either want to live in a free society or your don't. That means accepting the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

Even in a free society there are responsibilities that must be fulfilled to make sure the society succeeds. - sorry - thats part of belonging to a community
If one lets people decide if they want to pay for roads or not very few people would pay but all would still use them.
BTW - we should all want to see OUR society succeed

 

[DrSporK]

Why are people afraid of socialized healthcare?

If ya have to ask... you'll never understand the answer.


Just name me one thing the gov't does right....

1) National Parks
2) Fire and Police Services
3) Roads (that is until recently, the roads maintenance is bad)

2. These are state run, and the first is often volunteer based.
2a) the Police services of NYC are abysmal. A corrupt agency seeking to pay its wages through the non criminal.

-SporK

 

[rdean]

The right wing leadership thinks by terrorizing their base with this constant barrage of "government bad", they will remain in control. I understand why they desperately want that control. They have managed to change laws and regulations enabling them to squeeze every cent they can from this country. They have squeezed so much, the country is on the ropes, but they feel they can squeeze a little more.

But they have a tiger by the tail. They have gone so far beyond the pale instilling fear and terrorizing, the tiger might turn around and bite their ass. You can see it so far with the bizarre "Tea Party".

Our government is part of what has made this the mightiest nation on earth.

The right wing leadership has convinced their base that the government isn't really a construct of the "people" of this country, but some secret cabal of unnamed and unknowable shadowy conspiratorial hidden group of elitists that wants to program your children and control your thoughts. Talk about paranoid delusion.

So instead of Americans helping each other and building a strong nation, you have right wingers who are pushing this dangerous ideology of "every man for himself" and "we want our country back".

They have completely forgotten, "United we stand.....". Pity.

 

[rdean]

The right wing leadership thinks by terrorizing their base with this constant barrage of "government bad", they will remain in control. I understand why they desperately want that control. They have managed to change laws and regulations enabling them to squeeze every cent they can from this country. They have squeezed so much, the country is on the ropes, but they feel they can squeeze a little more.

But they have a tiger by the tail. They have gone so far beyond the pale instilling fear and terrorizing, the tiger might turn around and bite their ass. You can see it so far with the bizarre "Tea Party".

Our government is part of what has made this the mightiest nation on earth.

The right wing leadership has convinced their base that the government isn't really a construct of the "people" of this country, but some secret cabal of unnamed and unknowable shadowy conspiratorial hidden group of elitists that wants to program your children and control your thoughts. Talk about paranoid delusion.

So instead of Americans helping each other and building a strong nation, you have right wingers who are pushing this dangerous ideology of "every man for himself" and "we want our country back".

They have completely forgotten, "United we stand.....". Pity.

I wonder where right wingers think those "secret elitists" hide? One wonders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Even in a free society there are responsibilities that must be fulfilled to make sure the society succeeds. - sorry - thats part of belonging to a community

Our Constitution is based on individual liberties, not communal liberties.

If one lets people decide if they want to pay for roads or not very few people would pay but all would still use them.

Roads are not even remotely close to being related to health care and are not relevant to this discussion.