A Question For Supporters Of Government Run Healthcare... - Page 15 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jviehe · #**211** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet57

I would disagree with your assessment of the status quo: the government is not in healthcare perse'. We've been fine with medicare and medicaid as supplimental programs for those on a fixed income: what do you propose that those people do?

And freedom from what? The question was about these patriotic buzz words and phrases that actually reflect nothing. It seems as though by using these buzz words, folks are trying to say that they are more patriotic than those who disagree.

Freedom and liberty are not threatened at all: that stuff smacks of McCarthyism... so I don't get it.

Where's your solution? With all the hyperbole from the right, we hear nothing about what they would do about this.

60% of the budget goes to healthcare, about 10% of the entire productivity of the country, every single year. That would indicate the govt IS involved, massively.

As for patriotism, freedom has nothing to do with it. Freedom is an individual right that superceeds the country. Again, facts. Get some.

dblack · #**212** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet57

Can you please explain exactly how the governemnt plans to disrupt a person's ability to take charge of their own health care?

Sure. They restrict the drugs you can purchase, grow, or make yourself. They restrict which doctors you're allowed to see. They restrict - wait, I'm just repeating myself. Read my last post. Click on the link. Reading Is Fundamental!

Quote:

"Freedom" may ring hollow for you..

What the hell kind of statement is that?

Hey, you're the one that referred to it as a "patriotic buzz word ... that actually reflect[s] nothing". If you've changed your mind, awesome!

danielpalos · #**213** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblack

Freedom to take care of your health in the way you think is best. Freedom to see any health care provider you want, regardless of whether the government, or the AMA, or the insurance companies, approve of their methodology. Freedom to arrange payment with your doctor without interference from the state on behalf of the insurance companies. Freedom to purchase, grow or make the drugs you need to maintain your health without asking permission. Freedom to finance your health care outside mandated, and destructive, insurance schemes. Etc...

I think you're projecting. "Freedom" may ring hollow for you, but not for all of us. McCarthy? Give me break. We just don't want to be meddled with.

Eliminating official poverty via unemployment compensation, at-will, could enable more market based transactions in our mixed-market political-economy.

It would also follow a democratic tradition, ""If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."
- Aristotle

TSGracchus · #**214** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

60% of the budget goes to healthcare

18%. Try to get your facts straight.

Of course, the Canadian government spends only 15% of its budget on health care, and covers everyone, while we spend 18% and cover only the very poor and the elderly. Interesting, wot?

So if you want to say it's too much, I'm inclined to agree. We should adopt a system more like Canada's. That way we'd spend less in government money, and get more in health care.

compote_tom · #**215** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcATL

Why do Right Wingers LIE about Canada's health care system? I know many Canadians and I texted qujite a few of them today asking them if they and the rest of CAnada enjoys their healthcare and they all responded with a resounding YES!

It would be interesting to see a video of a reporting travelling to CAnada and asking random Canadians on the street what they think of their healthcare system and how long they have to wait in lines and how satisfied they are and stand back and let them speak. I assure you it won't be the fucking LIES the Right Wing keeps feeind the public.

All this bullshit about Canadians have to wait forever to get healthcare and fleeing to America are nothing but LIES.

All you can do is laugh at these Right Wingers.

I think the two most common comments are the wait that Candians have and the terrible cost.

As far as cost we pay in excess of $700 a month for insurance, I spent the night in the hospital about a year ago and I owe more than $4,000 for that one night, that is after the insurance paid. And follow up was close to another $1,000. Now less than a year later I can't have necessary surgery because I have to produce another $2500 to pay copays and deductables that are required up front. If I could pay it( I can't) that would be over $15000 in one year, not adding medication, normal Dr visits or what is spent on my wife. Will be close to $17000 in one year. We have what many would say was good insurance, through a very large school district. The so called "best medical system in the world" only works for the healthy or wealthy.

As far as the wait, well I have to wait for my surgery till I can raise the money.

For all of the 90's and some of the 2000's I dealt with a Canadian Company. And I constantly ask Canadians about their healthcare. Not one person wanted to give it up. Of course, I spoke to shipping clerks, factory workers and truck drivers. I didn't speak to the wealthy. A single payer system would probably be better for 70 - 80% of Americans. All this BS about waiting and choice means very little to most of us.

Several years ago I had a back Xray, after insurance I owed over $400. Personally I don't believe I have insurance just a medical discount card.

Good Luck

compote_tom · #**216** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Somehow my comments ended up as the quote

Slon · #**217** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcATL

One good answer is...its pretty good and fucked up as it is now.

I don't see what's so good about the private sector running it.

The private sector isn't running it entirely, per se. There are plenty of restrictions placed upon private health care practices that needlessly increase the cost and difficulty of providing it.

Quote:

It makes sense to try something else.

Indeed, it does. We can either socialize it all the way, or privatize it all the way. Given that our government is incredibly corrupt and self-serving, whereas our private sector is relatively capable and efficient, it makes sense to go with the private sector option.

Quote:

Sensibly speaking though, there's probably a way where they BOTH can be available...and let the CONSUMER choose.

Those who want the greatness of the private sector...let them have it, and the others will choose government.

What's so wrong with that?

Because adding government services inherently pushes private businesses out of the market, and makes the remaining one's struggle more.

John Drake · #**218** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

The private sector isn't running it entirely, per se. There are plenty of restrictions placed upon private health care practices that needlessly increase the cost and difficulty of providing it.Indeed, it does. We can either socialize it all the way, or privatize it all the way.

Given that our government is incredibly corrupt and self-serving, whereas our private sector is relatively capable and efficient, it makes sense to go with the private sector option.:lol

Because adding government services inherently pushes private businesses out of the market, and makes the remaining one's struggle more.

:

We are talking about Health Care here, are we not? The same people who deny teenagers liver transplants? Have you ever bothered to actually look at your medical bill before your insurance gets it?

So?? Healthcare has the advantage of having a captive customer base. If private services can't compete even with that advantage let them go out of business, just like anyone else in business.

Slon · #**219** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

:

We are talking about Health Care here, are we not? The same people who deny teenagers liver transplants? Have you ever bothered to actually look at your medical bill before your insurance gets it?

Like I said, many of the costs associated with medical assistance is a result of heavy regulation. Likewise, if there were fewer regulation, I would imagine that teenager (I'm not sure who you're talking about) might have been able to get it. In any case, our government has a LONG history of making age-based prohibitions. See the age of consent, which varies from state to state, and even varies according to sex. Who is to say they won't impose the same ridiculous bullshit if they get their hands on health care?

Quote:

So?? Healthcare has the advantage of having a captive customer base. If private services can't compete even with that advantage let them go out of business, just like anyone else in business.

Oh yeah, because if they can't compete with "free" health care, then they were no good, anyway.

Chocobot · #**220** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Like I said, many of the costs associated with medical assistance is a result of heavy regulation. Likewise, if there were fewer regulation, I would imagine that teenager (I'm not sure who you're talking about) might have been able to get it. In any case, our government has a LONG history of making age-based prohibitions. See the age of consent, which varies from state to state, and even varies according to sex. Who is to say they won't impose the same ridiculous bullshit if they get their hands on health care?
Oh yeah, because if they can't compete with "free" health care, then they were no good, anyway.

Ridiculous nonsense. It makes little business sense for an HMO to take on the risk of this teenagers health, which is likely to fail and to fix it will be enormously expensive.

Govmnt's aged biased prohibitions are irrelevant. The age of consent is done to protect the young. The government, with its hands on healthcare, must still abide by its own anti-discrimination legislation.

Theres no such thing as free health care, in any case they can compete with publicly provided health cover.

Slon · #**221** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobot

Ridiculous nonsense. It makes little business sense for an HMO to take on the risk of this teenagers health, which is likely to fail and to fix it will be enormously expensive.

Then have the kid sign a contract saying he yields any special claims to further medical care following the procedure.

Quote:

Govmnt's aged biased prohibitions are irrelevant. The age of consent is done to protect the young. The government, with its hands on healthcare, must still abide by its own anti-discrimination legislation.

First of all, it's not irrelevant. All one needs to see to figure that out are the baseless variations on the laws. Why do they vary by sex? Why do they vary by state? Are people dumber for a longer time in some states?

Of course not. The real reason (or at least one of them) for age-based discrimination is winning votes from American idiots who think it protects their kids. "I want to raise the age of consent from 16 to 17 to protect your daughter from being raped, and the guy that opposes me obviously wants her to die a painful death." Do you really think most Americans would figure out that it is bullshit?

Quote:

Theres no such thing as free health care, in any case they can compete with publicly provided health cover.

No, but there is health care for which you are forced to pay through taxes REGARDLESS of your use of it. The taxed amount is a sunk cost, and thus must not be considered in a rational decision. As a result, the choice is between getting health care from someone who will do it at no cost to you, vs getting it from someone who will charge you full price. The difference between getting one or the other is the full price of care.

In this case, it really wouldn't matter for most people how much government care sucks or how inefficient it is since they won't even be able to afford private health care after having their money taken from them to fund the government care. And for those who do have the money, it would be like choosing between free care and full price care.

Think about it. How can a business reasonably compete when the other side is allowed to break into the homes of its patients and take their money even before (and even if they don't) they say they need any health care, while giving people care at no additional cost?

danielpalos · #**222** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

We already have a uniformed public health service in the US. The organization is there, and could provide that level of infrastructure development in each State. A research-hospital, in my opinion, is appropriate to the general government of the Union since it can ensure the same federal standard to each State. Such a public policy could provide for both the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. It would also make more feasible, other infrastructure development to modernize our political-economy.

It could be considered a comparison and contrast in the use of socialism, for more economic development and with better accordance to our Constitution.

Socialism should be used for the good of the State and not resort to Statism for the advancement of socialism.

Chocobot · #**223** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Then have the kid sign a contract saying he yields any special claims to further medical care following the procedure

Why would the kid do that? Moreover why would anyone want the kid to do that? The kid will life long needs, not just for operation - so such a solution is simply not viable.

Quote:

First of all, it's not irrelevant. All one needs to see to figure that out are the baseless variations on the laws. Why do they vary by sex? Why do they vary by state? Are people dumber for a longer time in some states?

The baseless variations are also irrelevant, as the variation cannot diminish the case for such legislation across the country.

Why indeed do they vary by sex? By state?

So what?

Its completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Of course not. The real reason (or at least one of them) for age-based discrimination is winning votes from American idiots who think it protects their kids. "I want to raise the age of consent from 16 to 17 to protect your daughter from being raped, and the guy that opposes me obviously wants her to die a painful death." Do you really think most Americans would figure out that it is bullshit?

They think alot harder about it than your example demonstrates. Just ask your mom what she thinks.

Quote:

No, but there is health care for which you are forced to pay through taxes REGARDLESS of your use of it. The taxed amount is a sunk cost, and thus must not be considered in a rational decision. As a result, the choice is between getting health care from someone who will do it at no cost to you, vs getting it from someone who will charge you full price. The difference between getting one or the other is the full price of care.

The taxed amount proves its not free.

Quote:

In this case, it really wouldn't matter for most people how much government care sucks or how inefficient it is since they won't even be able to afford private health care after having their money taken from them to fund the government care. And for those who do have the money, it would be like choosing between free care and full price care.

For most people, they can have good government aided care, should they need it, and any extras it doesnt provide they can pay for themselves. This is excellent news, because if they get into trouble with an expensive bill they face no possibility of medical bankruptcy.
Their money will not all be taken, and everyone can get on with their lives.

Quote:

Think about it. How can a business reasonably compete when the other side is allowed to break into the homes of its patients and take their money even before (and even if they don't) they say they need any health care, while giving people care at no additional cost?

They simply contract out from the government service, taking on the jobs that require doing. They also can provide their own care for those willing to pay extra. BUPA, a private company in the UK, does very well.

Slon · #**224** (**permalink**) 07-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobot

Why would the kid do that? Moreover why would anyone want the kid to do that? The kid will life long needs, not just for operation - so such a solution is simply not viable.

Then the kid is fucked. He simply doesn't have the money worth the operation and, quite frankly, probably isn't worth it, anyway. Some people will die. It's the way life works.

Quote:

The baseless variations are also irrelevant, as the variation cannot diminish the case for such legislation across the country.

Why indeed do they vary by sex? By state?

So what?

Its completely irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. It proves that the laws are largely subjective and not based on any science. Just a bunch of feel-good bullshit to tell the voters.

Quote:

They think alot harder about it than your example demonstrates. Just ask your mom what she thinks.

If they think so hard about it, then why are the laws still in such a state of variation? Why is there so much subjectiveness about them?

Quote:

The taxed amount proves its not free.

It exists at no additional cost.

Quote:

For most people, they can have good government aided care, should they need it, and any extras it doesnt provide they can pay for themselves. This is excellent news, because if they get into trouble with an expensive bill they face no possibility of medical bankruptcy.
Their money will not all be taken, and everyone can get on with their lives.

Except for all the people whose money is seized and all those medical practitioners who are pushed out of the business by a government monopoly with relatively unlimited and unjustly acquired resources. What about all those people who have their money taken who never use the amount of medical aid equivalent to what they lost?

Quote:

They simply contract out from the government service, taking on the jobs that require doing. They also can provide their own care for those willing to pay extra. BUPA, a private company in the UK, does very well.

Oh sure, some will be able to do well, but it would be like competing with an armed robber who robs your clients in front of the door to your store and gives them the product/service at no additional charge. Let me ask you this:

You own a candy store. You buy your candy from willing candy makers and sell it to willing buyers. Your business is relatively good. Then, I get a machine gun, stand outside your store and rob everyone who passes it (including your would be customers). I then use the money to buy candy from your supplier and offer to give it to your customers for free.

You think you'd be able to compete as easily? You think it would be as fair as if I opened a shop just like your shop next door?

Chocobot · #**225** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Then the kid is fucked. He simply doesn't have the money worth the operation and, quite frankly, probably isn't worth it, anyway. Some people will die. It's the way life works.

Its not for you to decide the worth of a life. Youll have your opinion, but most people will never see it your way - so youll just have to work around that..

Quote:

Of course it's relevant. It proves that the laws are largely subjective and not based on any science. Just a bunch of feel-good bullshit to tell the voters.

And? They may be subjective, but if they work to the satisfaction of enough people then that is quite good enough.

Quote:

If they think so hard about it, then why are the laws still in such a state of variation? Why is there so much subjectiveness about them?

Because theres no perceived need to change them. It simply not a pressing concern, and will probably require too much arguing to bring them into uniformity.

Quote:

Except for all the people whose money is seized and all those medical practitioners who are pushed out of the business by a government monopoly with relatively unlimited and unjustly acquired resources.

Who simply cant exist, medical practitioners will always have a business.

Quote:

What about all those people who have their money taken who never use the amount of medical aid equivalent to what they lost?

They have a safety net. As do their children, when they grow up. Theres no possibility of medical bankruptcy.

Quote:

Oh sure, some will be able to do well, but it would be like competing with an armed robber who robs your clients in front of the door to your store and gives them the product/service at no additional charge. Let me ask you this:

You own a candy store. You buy your candy from willing candy makers and sell it to willing buyers. Your business is relatively good. Then, I get a machine gun, stand outside your store and rob everyone who passes it (including your would be customers). I then use the money to buy candy from your supplier and offer to give it to your customers for free.

You think you'd be able to compete as easily? You think it would be as fair as if I opened a shop just like your shop next door?

Except its not robbery.

And you would be able to compete, youd simply now change your focus to help the machine gun weilder to provide for everyone. Perhaps even contracting out his candy distribution service and for those who want to pay for extra special candy,

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode