On August 15 2009 22:49 sdpgposd wrote: fox news is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies so dont listen to a word they say
edit: on pretty much anything actually.
....
I know you think its cool to bash Fox News because they are the #1 news network (but its only because "dumb" people like me watch it, right?).
'Bash', interesting word. Actually, i have no idea how popular fox are in the US but i really hope they're not as popular as you claim. That would be very sad indeed. I dont think you are able to make any accurate assumptions about me so i'd suggest you refrain from doing so.
On August 16 2009 07:06 benjammin wrote: question: there's a lot of mention of a 'bureaucrat' coming between you and your doctor under the public option, but since all insurance plans have that i was wondering who exactly would be covering the bureaucratic duties. would it just be H&HS?
also, wasn't there a woman a few years ago who testified to congress (maybe) about how her role as an insurance claims adjuster was specifically to DENY healthcare coverage for people wherever possible? not sure why people are so quick to defend that kind of health insurance.
Yeah, just like the horrid housing insurance market, in which State Farm threatened to leave Florida and the State Government told them to pound sand. After they left, dozens of small insurance companies popped up and offered better and cheaper insurance plans than what was under the umbrella of the State Insurance. The same exact thing would happen if we actually privatized our healthcare system.
I agree with Penn that the US all ready has socialized medicine and has had it for quite some time. Look how poorly the Government ran the system. The VA, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, all horribly run and is significantly ruining the nations financial capabilities. You do know that Medicare and Medicaid alone have upwards of 40+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, correct?
You may have "free" in the loosest of definitions, however because of the torrid waiting lines you are actually not receiving any care at all. I think it (Socialized Medicine) just shows the lack of personal responsibility, the movement towards a prevailing cradle to the grave nanny state, and the price of which eats up countries budgets. First off, you can't deny that a significant segment of those in favor of socialized medicine see at as free and hands off because you get your taxes automatically taken out of your earnings, where as in a privatized system you actually have to have some effort and look around, compare companies, and make choices (Wow, choices, who would have thought that) that are best suited for you and not under an umbrella system in which politburo's (The elite; oligarcharial) make decisions about your life and care that often times the only consideration is Cost:Benefit and other such draconian formulae.
Just look at the Presidents closest healthcare advisor; Ezekial Emmanuel. Go out there, look him up, read some of what he wrote and analyze what is coming down the pipeline. I'm not sure why anyone over 45-50 is in favor of this system. I'm also sure, that all you twenty something college students who haven't really worked much in your life (especially not knowing what its like when you are responsible for your self-sustainment), will be crowing to the crowd when you get denied care when you are 55+. Sure, socialized medicine in some countries may be "great" for those in the prime of their life, but its hell and death for older people. Hey, but as long as though poor people who don't want to work in the first place (When I was in Vegas I was watching the local news and it had some homeless people on because the local government gave them a little area to "build a tent city" and it turned into a trashheap, criminal infestation (dealers, users, etc.), and an unsanitary locality, so they told them to disperse and these people had the audacity to demand that the local government give them property so as to build another tent city. They interviewed some other of the inhabitants and many of them said they don't want to work.), is covered at the expense of our aging population, you're humane!
If you want to see how the free-market transforms countries into wealthier states (Rome who at its height had a maximum tax of 10% and even then they hated it; read some Cicero sometime he is one of the finest philosophers and statesman to have ever lived), just look at Eastern Europe and Estonia.
The system we have now does need reformation. The Government is not the answer as has been plain for all to see in how the Government has handled the healthcare system for the past 40 years. They created/exacerbated the problem, so you turn around and then look at them for more intervention as the solution? This makes no logical sense, and shows some backwords reasoning. There are great free-market solutions that comply with the tenants and fundamentals of our Constitution and the independant spirit of our people who do not need Government. If you want to see the difference between sheeps of Government and free peoples who self-sustain look no further than the comparison between New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina and the people of Kansas during the recent Winter Ice storm that devastated the region. Yet, those same people who think the Government is beneficit and benevolent and are looking out for the small people, time and time again cannot see what happens in plain sight.
You want a libertarian approach and free-market austrian/chicago school of economics solution that promotes individuality, responsibility, and self-sustainment?
- Take the insurance handling from the Employeers and place it on the individual - Abolish or severely diminish Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP - Move the VA system to a privatized solution similar to Tri-care for Active-Duty - Allow across state competition - Have all lawsuits levied against Medical personnel that are dismissed or found in favor of the defendant paid by the plaintiff (All legal bills, etc.). I am iffy on a cap on maximum civil suit recompense, but its not out of question. - Incentivize charitable work by having it tax deductible - Abolish the 16th amendment and replace it with a Fair Tax (Fair tax is just a nationwide sales tax) - At the same time as the above make healthcare exempt from the Fair tax - Ensure fair practices and voluntary contractual obligations are upheld (One of the primary reasons for Government in the first place)
These are just a few common sense adjustments to return to a privatized system that offers affordable healthcare that is vastly superior to any socialized system.
P.S. That 47 million "uninsured" is B.S. I've posted why it is with sources in the past, and I'll do it again when I get home. It's actually around 8-12 million uninsured.
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
Except that you have signed a contract with the insurance provider, and they must provide coverage per your contract, so yes you do have "bargaining power" on your death bed. Where do you come up with this? Do you know that insurance policies are legally bound contracts? That you volunteerily choose and sign your contract and that these are legally enforced? The insurance provider cannot just suddenly go, oh shit I don't like this contract and then refuse to abide by it.
We have reason and thought. It's the damn bill itself. READ IT!
Lastly, we aren't opposed to reform (Which this isn't, this is a complete and total rape and destruction of our current system, which isn't reform at all), we are opposed to any Government run healthcare system. We want to reform the system by limiting Government intervention and roles in healthcare thereby reducing costs by eliminating or vastly reducing Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Malpractice Trial Lawyers, allowing across State competition, etc. We want a free-market reformation of the system, not a Government bastardization.
Pigs can't fly. Your argument is flawed. Ok, i'm not sure how much you've looked into health care economics but it basically works like this when insurance companies are involved. You get out health care insurance, it will cost $x. Then when you need to go to hospital, the hospital asks you if you have health insurance. If you do, they charge an arm and a leg, and you don't mind because hell: its not you thats paying, and means you might get better health care, right? Well that is true. For that very short period of time, you DO get good value for money. The doctor makes a killing, and you get priority care.
Ok. Time out. Lets have a think about who gets stung for the bill for JUST a second here.
You know that $x you paid for when the insurance company did the stats, and averaged out the cost last time? Well guess what kiddo: the average cost went up! So guess how much you pay NEXT time round?
Poll: How much do you pay next time? (Vote): $(x - ammount because of 'effecent capitlism') (Vote): $x (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change) (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change + the future percieved increase)
You may answer with your head, i will not try and convince you the right answer. It is entirely up to you, since your part of the body of people who vote, and decide how this system works;)
Very few people actually understand the depth of problems in our current healthcare system.
Working in the healthcare industry, I'll tell you that two things need to be fixed.
#1. Eliminate or reduce malpractice insurance.
Doctors pay over $100,000 per year for it. In Canada, the government stomped out greedy insurance firms and doctors pay as little as $2000 a year. The high cost of malpractice hurts doctors, who are already feeling pressure on their salaries from hospitals. The premiums usually don't even cover the doctors when a malpractice claim actually occurs...usually the insurance company "settles" and charges the doctor the settlement. It's sick, and causes doctors to take many preventative (and sometimes dangerous) measures to triple check that patients aren't actually more sick than they actually are. This balloons basic healthcare costs and needs to be eliminated.
#2. Prevent Heathcare product profit gouging.
I worked for Johnson and Johnson for a while in R&D. The price gouging and competitor shutout tactics are disgusting. They have a virtual monopoly on some product lines (ie suture) and stomp out any competitors with a voracious sales rep team. INterestingly enough, they still increase prices every year...when I was working at J&J, the company I was at had a 10% growth in profit as their goal every year. AND THEY GOT IT. By charging exuberant prices for products. Their lobbying power makes them untouchable, and they cry "woe is the healthcare product industry, we can't cut costs at all! help us!" when any suggestion is made to clamp down and regulate their profit margins. I'm not saying the FDA isn't a large contributor (10+ million to get a product through the FDA to production necessitates high profit margins) but the gouging is still there.
Yet few people know these two things are large contributors. I usually hear "CUT DOCTOR'S SALARIES", which makes me chill, especially as I enter med school....
aegean I bet tons of 45-50 year olds would support socialized medicine here in michigan considering everyone got laid the fuck off and wont be able to afford shit when their unemployment runs out. You cant even get full time jobs here with insurance anymore.
And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
If you want a meritocracy push for legislation that outlaws nepotism in all its forms. Until then, you damage your own ideals by sabotaging any populist institutional construct that attempts to level the playing field. Whether that institutional construct is universal healthcare, affirmative action, Clean Air regulations in slums and urban centers, government grants for university schooling, or food programs for underprivileged school children, removing those programs won't ensure the best man wins as much as it'll ensure that there are fewer and fewer best men to hold the title.
Believe me, I appreciate the point of view. When I was putting myself through college I thought I was king shit because my parents didn't have the ability to pay my way, I was working overtime and attending classes full-time, pulling down good scores, paying all my bills, and still managed to find time to party on the weekends, buy a car, etc. Sure, some weeks I didn't sleep for 3 days at a time, but hell I was pulling myself up by my bootstraps, wasn't I? I was very much of the opinion that the poor could go fuck themselves 'cuz I was making something of myself and I started off with shit so what's their problem?
The truth is, in the real world your life is framed more by who you know than what you know or what you can do. The vast majority of people-- even exceptionally wealthy people-- are average, with about 10% being extraordinary (beautiful, brilliant, charismatic, devious) and about 10% being worthless (God hates them, I guess). 80% of people are just interchangeable cogs in the wheel, some trained for more complex tasks then others, but all basically the same. While it's possible to finish the race in first place when you started in last, it doesn't help to start the race off with a bonesaw cutting you off at the knees. This is what I've grown to believe is the state of things and is why I support any endeavor that might improve the quality of life for some poor schmuck that got a raw deal, even if everyone has to share in paying for it.
I believe this nature is amplified when it comes medical concerns, and is why reform of the current system toward universal healthcare isn't just desirable, but necessary. The per capita cost of medical coverage in the US is twice as much as it is in any other nation and that's a poor shake for ANYONE living here, not just the poor. To the poor, of course, that cost is devastating; to the middle class it can be crippling depending on fate; and even to the wealthy, it's puts them at a competitive disadvantage (in zero-sum terms) especially if they have American employees for which they provide healthcare.
I'm interested in hearing what your thinking is about the power this would give the government and why you fear it. Nader and the single-payer proponents already despise Obama's public option because it lacks any teeth to bargain with pharma for better prices. It doesn't interfere with hospitals and their running for profit. What it does is provide an alternative to insurance companies who are already usurping your power in exactly the same way the government might, and have incentive to be more ruthless about it since they have shareholders and profit margins to worry about. UPS and Fed-Ex still compete with the USPS, so I doubt this plan will be the end of private insurance by a long-shot... I don't understand this fear you have. Can you articulate it in concrete terms?
On August 16 2009 09:00 TheOvermind77 wrote: Very few people actually understand the depth of problems in our current healthcare system.
Working in the healthcare industry, I'll tell you that two things need to be fixed.
#1. Eliminate or reduce malpractice insurance.
Doctors pay over $100,000 per year for it. In Canada, the government stomped out greedy insurance firms and doctors pay as little as $2000 a year. The high cost of malpractice hurts doctors, who are already feeling pressure on their salaries from hospitals. The premiums usually don't even cover the doctors when a malpractice claim actually occurs...usually the insurance company "settles" and charges the doctor the settlement. It's sick, and causes doctors to take many preventative (and sometimes dangerous) measures to triple check that patients aren't actually more sick than they actually are. This balloons basic healthcare costs and needs to be eliminated.
Yet few people know these two things are large contributors. I usually hear "CUT DOCTOR'S SALARIES", which makes me chill, especially as I enter med school....
What? Malpractice lawsuits in the US actually yield lower payouts than the malpractice lawsuits in places like Canada or Britain: + Show Spoiler +
Also, malpractice lawsuits are only about .46% of the healthcare expenses in the US. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632
Of course, interestingly enough, Canada spends about 1/2 as much in percents with .27%... but that is actually a LOT less, lol. US Spends 6.5billion a year on malpractice litigation, Canada spends 237 million. + Show Spoiler +
On August 16 2009 09:26 Sadist wrote: And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
Yes. Why should society pay for it? It sounds heartless and cruel, but make some money and pay for your own medical care if you need it. That's your responsibility; other people don't have a duty to keep you alive and well.
If you want a meritocracy push for legislation that outlaws nepotism in all its forms. Until then, you damage your own ideals by sabotaging any populist institutional construct that attempts to level the playing field. Whether that institutional construct is universal healthcare, affirmative action, Clean Air regulations in slums and urban centers, government grants for university schooling, or food programs for underprivileged school children, removing those programs won't ensure the best man wins as much as it'll ensure that there are fewer and fewer best men to hold the title.
Believe me, I appreciate the point of view. When I was putting myself through college I thought I was king shit because my parents didn't have the ability to pay my way, I was working overtime and attending classes full-time, pulling down good scores, paying all my bills, and still managed to find time to party on the weekends, buy a car, etc. Sure, some weeks I didn't sleep for 3 days at a time, but hell I was pulling myself up by my bootstraps, wasn't I? I was very much of the opinion that the poor could go fuck themselves 'cuz I was making something of myself and I started off with shit so what's their problem?
The truth is, in the real world your life is framed more by who you know than what you know or what you can do. The vast majority of people-- even exceptionally wealthy people-- are average, with about 10% being extraordinary (beautiful, brilliant, charismatic, devious) and about 10% being worthless (God hates them, I guess). 80% of people are just interchangeable cogs in the wheel, some trained for more complex tasks then others, but all basically the same. While it's possible to finish the race in first place when you started in last, it doesn't help to start the race off with a bonesaw cutting you off at the knees. This is what I've grown to believe is the state of things and is why I support any endeavor that might improve the quality of life for some poor schmuck that got a raw deal, even if everyone has to share in paying for it.
I believe this nature is amplified when it comes medical concerns, and is why reform of the current system toward universal healthcare isn't just desirable, but necessary. The per capita cost of medical coverage in the US is twice as much as it is in any other nation and that's a poor shake for ANYONE living here, not just the poor. To the poor, of course, that cost is devastating; to the middle class it can be crippling depending on fate; and even to the wealthy, it's puts them at a competitive disadvantage (in zero-sum terms) especially if they have American employees for which they provide healthcare.
I'm interested in hearing what your thinking is about the power this would give the government and why you fear it. Nader and the single-payer proponents already despise Obama's public option because it lacks any teeth to bargain with pharma for better prices. It doesn't interfere with hospitals and their running for profit. What it does is provide an alternative to insurance companies who are already usurping your power in exactly the same way the government might, and have incentive to be more ruthless about it since they have shareholders and profit margins to worry about. UPS and Fed-Ex still compete with the USPS, so I doubt this plan will be the end of private insurance by a long-shot... I don't understand this fear you have. Can you articulate it in concrete terms?
Can you name one, two, or even three Government services that provide a better service than the private market equivalent?
What makes you think that a total socialized system is superior to a privatized healthcare system? Where in the Constitution does it allow for such a massive shift of power towards the Government?
Fear of Government power? Not read history? It's no wonder statesmen from Cicero to Montisqiue to Hayek seeked to limit Government. What in human history gives you any confidence that Government is benevolent?
Absolute power, absolutely corrupts. Shit, can you not see the rampant corruption in modern America? Mayors of cities like Baltimore, Detroit, etc. indicted. Rep. Conyers, Rangel, Dodd. Cabinet members, Geithner, etc.
Hey, but lets give them more power, and trust them even more! They have done such marvelous work, just look at Katrina, Energy grid infrastructure (EPA) (I bet you didn't know that there have hardly been any new energy sources produced (Plants; Natural Gas, Nuclear, Coal, etc.), Budget and financial oversight and responsibility (Hey, you guys railed against massive deficits, then in the same breath you get in office and triple them, then propose the biggest Government program ever. I guess you believe that what happened to the USSR can't happen to the US), VA system. Let's give them more power so they can emulate such great institutions!
My faith is in the invidividual and the ability to make choices that are in their best interests, rather than having some oligarchial structure that makes decisions on behalf of the people. Intellectual Elite....right.
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
Except that you have signed a contract with the insurance provider, and they must provide coverage per your contract, so yes you do have "bargaining power" on your death bed. Where do you come up with this? Do you know that insurance policies are legally bound contracts? That you volunteerily choose and sign your contract and that these are legally enforced? The insurance provider cannot just suddenly go, oh shit I don't like this contract and then refuse to abide by it.
We have reason and thought. It's the damn bill itself. READ IT!
Lastly, we aren't opposed to reform (Which this isn't, this is a complete and total rape and destruction of our current system, which isn't reform at all), we are opposed to any Government run healthcare system. We want to reform the system by limiting Government intervention and roles in healthcare thereby reducing costs by eliminating or vastly reducing Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Malpractice Trial Lawyers, allowing across State competition, etc. We want a free-market reformation of the system, not a Government bastardization.
Pigs can't fly. Your argument is flawed. Ok, i'm not sure how much you've looked into health care economics but it basically works like this when insurance companies are involved. You get out health care insurance, it will cost $x. Then when you need to go to hospital, the hospital asks you if you have health insurance. If you do, they charge an arm and a leg, and you don't mind because hell: its not you thats paying, and means you might get better health care, right? Well that is true. For that very short period of time, you DO get good value for money. The doctor makes a killing, and you get priority care.
Ok. Time out. Lets have a think about who gets stung for the bill for JUST a second here.
You know that $x you paid for when the insurance company did the stats, and averaged out the cost last time? Well guess what kiddo: the average cost went up! So guess how much you pay NEXT time round?
Poll: How much do you pay next time? (Vote): $(x - ammount because of 'effecent capitlism') (Vote): $x (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change) (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change + the future percieved increase)
You may answer with your head, i will not try and convince you the right answer. It is entirely up to you, since your part of the body of people who vote, and decide how this system works;)
The price of insurance doesn't go up every time someone uses it. The price of insurance goes up when the expected amount of use increases. Customers using their health insurance at the expected or lower rate than the provider calculated will not increase the cost of health insurance.
Health insurance companies estimate how much all of their customers' healthcare will cost. They add a small amount for profit. They price the insurance per person based on how likely each person is to use the insurance.
Government would not add any amount for profit. But they're expected to be less efficient because taxpayers have less control over government operations than shareholders have over corporate operations.
On August 16 2009 09:26 Sadist wrote: And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
Yes. Why should society pay for it? It sounds heartless and cruel, but make some money and pay for your own medical care if you need it. That's your responsibility; other people don't have a duty to keep you alive and well.
Actually, they do. But that duty is so big it's often hidden from people that aren't looking. It's what society is all about, ultimately. Extending species' survival and success through cooperative actions that are beneficial at the level of the individual. I mean, if you really want you can give living without the intervention of other people a shot... it's an entertaining thought experiment if nothing else.
On August 16 2009 09:26 Sadist wrote: And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
Yes. Why should society pay for it? It sounds heartless and cruel, but make some money and pay for your own medical care if you need it. That's your responsibility; other people don't have a duty to keep you alive and well.
I disagree. It's called taxes, and they go towards the wellbeing of all people.
Should people have to pay before they get an emergency ride to the hospital?
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
Except that you have signed a contract with the insurance provider, and they must provide coverage per your contract, so yes you do have "bargaining power" on your death bed. Where do you come up with this? Do you know that insurance policies are legally bound contracts? That you volunteerily choose and sign your contract and that these are legally enforced? The insurance provider cannot just suddenly go, oh shit I don't like this contract and then refuse to abide by it.
We have reason and thought. It's the damn bill itself. READ IT!
Lastly, we aren't opposed to reform (Which this isn't, this is a complete and total rape and destruction of our current system, which isn't reform at all), we are opposed to any Government run healthcare system. We want to reform the system by limiting Government intervention and roles in healthcare thereby reducing costs by eliminating or vastly reducing Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Malpractice Trial Lawyers, allowing across State competition, etc. We want a free-market reformation of the system, not a Government bastardization.
Pigs can't fly. Your argument is flawed. Ok, i'm not sure how much you've looked into health care economics but it basically works like this when insurance companies are involved. You get out health care insurance, it will cost $x. Then when you need to go to hospital, the hospital asks you if you have health insurance. If you do, they charge an arm and a leg, and you don't mind because hell: its not you thats paying, and means you might get better health care, right? Well that is true. For that very short period of time, you DO get good value for money. The doctor makes a killing, and you get priority care.
Ok. Time out. Lets have a think about who gets stung for the bill for JUST a second here.
You know that $x you paid for when the insurance company did the stats, and averaged out the cost last time? Well guess what kiddo: the average cost went up! So guess how much you pay NEXT time round?
Poll: How much do you pay next time? (Vote): $(x - ammount because of 'effecent capitlism') (Vote): $x (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change) (Vote): $(x + the amount extra of change + the future percieved increase)
You may answer with your head, i will not try and convince you the right answer. It is entirely up to you, since your part of the body of people who vote, and decide how this system works;)
The price of insurance doesn't go up every time someone uses it. The price of insurance goes up when the expected amount of use increases. Customers using their health insurance at the expected or lower rate than the provider calculated will not increase the cost of health insurance.
Health insurance companies estimate how much all of their customers' healthcare will cost. They add a small amount for profit. They price the insurance per person based on how likely each person is to use the insurance.
Government would not add any amount for profit. But they're expected to be less efficient because taxpayers have less control over government operations than shareholders have over corporate operations.
You missed the point... The point is a mentality that runs through the system for insurance. That is, doctors don't have a problem charging more since its not them, or the customer that pays. Therefore the price goes up every year, because the price of insurance goes up, which makes people feel more justified in expecting a higher bill. It is self perpetuating.
Having a public health care system means that everyone pays the same amount, and there is no 'decision' about how much it costs... so doctors can't 'choose' the price.
On August 16 2009 09:59 ShadowDrgn wrote: Why should society pay for it?
If you were a janitor and some stranger was dying and you were the only person that could provide the taxi service to the emergency room, would you do it? If they weren't dying, the taxi service alone would probably be $50+ in most places. But considering it's life or death, most people would pay as much money as they possibly could for that service. Some rich folks would even pay millions to have their lives saved.
But you're just a random janitor and it's unlikely you'll ever be in position to save someone's life. Still, you'd provide the service if you could. Hey! You're in luck! Your country has a useful thing called currency. You can do any random service, turn that labor into money, and use that money to make someone else do a service. Now you don't have to be directly involved in saving lives. You can clean floors, get money for it, and give some to your government which they'll use to hire people to save lives.
If you wouldn't lift a finger to save someone's life who is right in front of you, then I suppose I see no inconsistency in opposing national health insurance on the basis that people should take care of themselves.
On August 16 2009 10:10 Aegraen wrote: What makes you think that a total socialized system is superior to a privatized healthcare system?
Most of Europe.
Where in the Constitution does it allow for such a massive shift of power towards the Government?
What're you talking about? A public health insurance option =/= Obama is our king. What power and why do you fear it? That's my question. It doesn't violate the bill of rights, it doesn't allow for wiretaps, it doesn't replace the three branches of government with one, it doesn't extend the length of presidential terms. It's just a public service and the constitution most certainly allows for it even if it doesn't name healthcare specifically.
My faith is in the invidividual and the ability to make choices that are in their best interests, rather than having some oligarchial structure that makes decisions on behalf of the people. Intellectual Elite....right.
I agree that centralized decision-making can and does lead to disaster for any unforeseeable catastrophe and this should be defended against. Communism in the USSR was highly centralized and problems with communication and distribution of resources led to famines that killed an estimated 55 million people. A horrible tragedy-- a crime against humanity-- but a public insurance option is a far cry from centralized planning. It isn't a complete overhaul of the healthcare industry, it's an option added to what we already have. If it turns out to be higher quality, more cost-effective, it'll put massive pressure on private insurance to clean up their act and fly straight. If it's worse, only the desperate and frugal will use it and it'll tap your tax dollars less as a result. Again, what new powers would this grant the government, and why do you fear it?
Where in the Constitution does it allow for such a massive shift of power towards the Government?
What're you talking about? A public health insurance option =/= Obama is our king. What power and why do you fear it? That's my question. It doesn't violate the bill of rights, it doesn't allow for wiretaps, it doesn't replace the three branches of government with one, it doesn't extend the length of presidential terms. It's just a public service and the constitution most certainly allows for it even if it doesn't name healthcare specifically.
My faith is in the invidividual and the ability to make choices that are in their best interests, rather than having some oligarchial structure that makes decisions on behalf of the people. Intellectual Elite....right.
I agree that centralized decision-making can and does lead to disaster for any unforeseeable catastrophe and this should be defended against. Communism in the USSR was highly centralized and problems with communication and distribution of resources led to famines that killed an estimated 55 million people. A horrible tragedy-- a crime against humanity-- but a public insurance option is a far cry from centralized planning. It isn't a complete overhaul of the healthcare industry, it's an option added to what we already have. If it turns out to be higher quality, more cost-effective, it'll put massive pressure on private insurance to clean up their act and fly straight. If it's worse, only the desperate and frugal will use it and it'll tap your tax dollars less as a result. Again, what new powers would this grant the government, and why do you fear it?
Actually the Constitution doesn't allow for it. The Federal Government has enumerated powers, and can only exercise those powers. The rest of the powers are delegated to the State and or the People.
The Founding Fathers sought to limit Government power. Furthermore, all of the people that will be involved in this travesty of a bill will have no accountability, no oversight, and no transparency just like you see with every other department; Education, EPA, the 40 odd Czars, etc.
These people don't represent the people. They represent their interests. In all senses of the word, they are apparatchiks. That will only significantly increase when you nationalize 20% of the nation's economy. As is right now GDP spending is 45% Government.
Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
On August 16 2009 09:26 Sadist wrote: And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
Yes. Why should society pay for it? It sounds heartless and cruel, but make some money and pay for your own medical care if you need it. That's your responsibility; other people don't have a duty to keep you alive and well.
Actually, they do. But that duty is so big it's often hidden from people that aren't looking. It's what society is all about, ultimately. Extending species' survival and success through cooperative actions that are beneficial at the level of the individual. I mean, if you really want you can give living without the intervention of other people a shot... it's an entertaining thought experiment if nothing else.
You took that statement too broadly, which is my fault for posting a 2-liner response. Although, if extending species' survival and success is what society is all about, we should probably be killing babies with severe genetic disorders instead of paying for lifelong medical care and allowing them to pass on their genes. I'm not advocating that. People generally help others because they would want help in a similar situation, which is what you're referring to. It's essentially a societal insurance plan, and of course that's a good thing. However, ultimately you're responsible for yourself, and the government legislating what you can't and what you must do "for your own good" is the main characteristic of a nanny state.
Replies to a nonsensical post tend to be nonsensical themselves so I don't know why I tried to respond to Sadist in the first place.
To travis: you pay for the ambulance ride afterwards.
On August 16 2009 10:46 Liquid`NonY wrote: But you're just a random janitor and it's unlikely you'll ever be in position to save someone's life. Still, you'd provide the service if you could. Hey! You're in luck! Your country has a useful thing called currency. You can do any random service, turn that labor into money, and use that money to make someone else do a service. Now you don't have to be directly involved in saving lives. You can clean floors, get money for it, and give some to your government which they'll use to hire people to save lives.
Or you can clean floors, get money for it, and give some to the doctors which they'll use to save your life. Other people can do likewise. Why does the government need to be involved?
On August 16 2009 09:26 Sadist wrote: And how the hell am I supposed to take accountability for a genetic disorder that I have no control over? Thats a nanny state? Because I have a genetic disease that I would gladly get rid of if I wanted I should take accountability for it?
Yes. Why should society pay for it? It sounds heartless and cruel, but make some money and pay for your own medical care if you need it. That's your responsibility; other people don't have a duty to keep you alive and well.
EPT
