Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Both Reps and Dems have problems with socialized medicine in the United States. This is unfortunate, because you dont have to be a Communist to support this idea.
Socialized medicine is not free. All employees pay into this system and have a right to use it. This is therefore not a gift, but a right that one earns by paying into the system.
In Germany those who earn more pay more into the system. If the earn, lets say 3500€ per month they can choose to leave the system and sign up for a privite health insurance company, but the doctors remain the same.
Almost all doctors in Germany handle both the majority in the state runed system and the private health care sector. Those who are in the private sector pay much more when there sick i.e. doctor and hospital visits, but lower monthly payments for health care.
Whos afraid of socialized medicine and why. Go into Wikipedia under socialized medicine. Most experts claim that socialized medicine is not more expensive that what America now has.
Secretary of Defense
I'm not a big fan of the ubiquitous state, and putting the federal government in charge of our health care seems yet another step in that direction.
BUT....
I would much rather have full blown socialized medicine than the stuff that congress is dicking around with right now. Selling us out to the insurance companies is not my idea of "universal healthcare".
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -- Robert E. Heinlein
President
Thats because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you really not understand this?Originally Posted by bennyhill
No, you just have to be a fascist, a socialist and utterly without respect for anyone else but yourself.
No shit.
Ahem - what is being discussed here is socialized medicine, not employer-subsidized health insurance.
The word you're looking for is not "right" but rather "service you are paying for". Again though, I thought we were discussing socialized medicine, rather than employer-subsidized health insurance?
Which is utterly unfair on its face and actually penalizes those who have been more successful, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you.
Ah, but you see, the system being proposed in the US does not permit ANYONE to leave the system. In fact, you face stiff fines and potential jail time if you even try to. Additionally, you cannot stop paying for it even if you want to add on a private service.
So what?
Afraid? I do not believe that is an accurate term. Those of us who oppose it do not do so out of fear. We do so because we understand it and realize the damage it can cause.
Hardly an authoritative source.
Really? Who are these "experts"? Besides, why the fuck do you think we give two shits about which is more expensive to the end user?
Bennyhill - do you have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about?
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
We should hire the French to set up a single payer system for us based on their system, which is the best in the world.
Under the French system, the government is in charge of health care insurance, but the doctors and the patients are in charge of the patient's health care.
How has the Interstate Commerce Act been employed to control every aspect of our lives?
What makes you think you're qualified to determine what is unconstitutional?
Vice President
Eric keeps saying its unconstitutional, but its actually not.
The health of the citizenry is certainly part of the 'general welfare' which congress has the power to legislate - in fact, its specifically mentioned in the constitution.
I don't like the bills the congress is considering, but its not because of constitutional reasons.
Vice President
Just bad at math.
All employees aren't paid the same wages and there is no way to guarantee the money they pay now will be enough to pay the bills later. Who pays for the non-workers?Socialized medicine is not free. All employees pay into this system and have a right to use it. This is therefore not a gift, but a right that one earns by paying into the system.
why would anyone ever leave the public system if it provided adequate affordable care for all?In Germany those who earn more pay more into the system. If the earn, lets say 3500€ per month they can choose to leave the system and sign up for a privite health insurance company, but the doctors remain the same.
Dear EricOKC,
so socialized medicine or univeral health care coverage is not an issue of how best to take care of the health issues of average working class people?
For you its ideology.
If the government pulled 100% out of the health care industry. Do you think that millions of ordinary working citizens would be able to afford it? I dont.
Reps see the state as "evil" and blue eye private industry. Lehmen Brothers didnt only "fuck" their employees and customers, but the us taxpayers and the entire world.
I feel safer with more government control as with less. Businessmen are preditory animals and need to be tamed. Does anybody out there think otherwise?
President
Yeah, it actually is. There is nothing in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to require everyone in the US to purchase something.
Using that logic, could you please explain to my why we are not providing food clothing and shelter for everyone, which are definitely more important than health insurance and fall under your definition of "general welfare"?
Good luck with that...
I dislike them for a LOT of reasons. Constitutionality is only one.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
President
FINALLY you learn how to spell my name.
Nope - it isnt, and even if it WERE, their health choices and needs are not my fucking problem.
Yep - some silly ideology that says you dont have any right to my money.
Absofuckinglutely. Especially since compliance costs are over 70% of the costs to begin with. Government was NOT involved in health care until the 1940s and yet somehow, someway, ordinary working people could afford it.
Bear in mind, i really dont give two shits how someone else chooses to spend their money. I have serious issues with them trying to spend MINE because they dont want to spend their own on health care.
That, my friend, is because you dont seem to have a clue what you're talking about and are looking only at the emotional arguments, rather than anything resembling facts.
Could you translate that into English, and then explain its relationship to this discussion?
Great! I'm happy for you. Stay in a your own country where you have more government control.
I, and many other Americans, do not WANT more government control.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Vice President
Technically they can, as long as its being done for a reason within the specified responsibilities of congress. It hasn't been done before, and I don't personally think they SHOULD do it, but its not unconstitutional.
Congress would be within its authority to do that if they wanted. It would be within their constitutional powers to do that. You might not want to give them any ideas in that regard ..... (incidentally welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc, are all doing exactly that).Using that logic, could you please explain to my why we are not providing food clothing and shelter for everyone, which are definitely more important than health insurance and fall under your definition of "general welfare"?
Good luck with that...
President
Somehow I'm thinking you may want to rethink that line of reasoning. I fail to see anything in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to create legislation taking over a complete industry and then forcing the public to purchase the government provided substitute.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Administrator
Without regard to constitutions, democrats, republicans, or any other government function the idea of socialized medicine means that one single source would provide medical care for a given community. The community could not opt out of that system of medical care and the system would determine what level of care was sufficient for the community.
If that's what we're supposed to be talking about regarding "socialized medicine" then it's a bad idea and all steps which logically lead to such a system are bad ideas.
A single payer/provider system can be VERY inexpensive to operate because the system itself can determine what services it will provide to which recipients and under what terms it will perform. In essence it creates an "assembly line" type efficiency and costs can be easily controlled. Even such things as raw materials for any manufactured products (drugs in this case) can be produced very inexpensively. If cost of care is the ONLY consideration then this type of system works fine. If, however, quality of care, availability of care, options on level of care and such things as innovation and creation of new treatments is a priority then a wholly socialized (by the aforementioned definition) system will provide little to none of that.
If we start with a perfectly efficient "socialized" system of medical care we have to add a certain level of cost when care outside the norm is required or desired. That additional care or material need gets additionally expensive because it has to be created from the ground up or purchased from outside the system. Take Henry Ford's assembly line for example. Black Model T's were cheap and easy to make but if someone wanted a red one then production had to come to a stop, paint tools needed to be cleaned out of black and refilled with red, the car needed to be painted and then the red needed to be cleaned out of the system and black put back in. It actually would have been cheaper, from a production standpoint, to have sent the car body through unpainted and have the customer paint it himself BUT the customer would then have to remove seats and interior panels to get a good quality paint job comparable to what would have come from the factory.
What happens in a situation like this? The provider is put in a position of having to either absorb the additional cost of lost productivity to provide a "specialized" service or he has to charge more for the product. The customer has to either live without this option, pay for the option or take care of that need outside of the system at their own expense. If the customer is wealthy and the "need" is actually more of a "desire" then so be it. The customer can, and should, go outside the system to fill their need. However, if the need really is a need and the customer is unable to pay the difference then the system needs to compensate by either charging everyone else a portion of the fee for the specialized service or by forcing the customer do do without that service.
Now then, no two people are the same physically. Everyone needs some level of specialized, or, more accurately, "personalized", medical care. The wholly "socialized" system can only expand services to a particular point before costs exceed revenues and at that point the only options for the system are to cut services or increase revenues(taxes). The customers will not be happy with either of these options.
So, if "Socialized" medical care systems are very efficient but only over a very limited scope of services what other options are there?
In an entirely unregulated free market there would, in theory be a provider for every customer at a price point that the customer could afford. The downside is that the level of care would range from excellent to "I'm not a doctor but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night". Actually, "downside" might be too harsh a term. In an ideal world this level of availability would be exactly what (excuse the pun) the doctor ordered but the reality is that the poor would receive substantially lower quality treatment than the wealthy and, without some significant planning, the poor would have only limited access to high level care. The upside is that innovation would thrive as the ability to diagnose and treat greater numbers of customers becomes the key to revenue generation.
Technologies and equipment sectors of the medical industry would thrive as would pharmaceutical manufacturers. This would have a resonance in the employment sector as more and more unskilled and semi-skilled positions opened up. In theory, much of this technology could also be sold to outside entities who had wholly socialized medical care systems and/or some of the "free market" options available could act as stop-gaps for the socialized systems.
One option which will almost be a certain failure would be to simply mandate that everyone in a given population purchase medical insurance. This method does absolutely nothing to alter the cost, availability or quality of medical care but it does create a gigantic political bureaucracy to oversee what will be, in essence, a prepaid medical plan. Private insurers will be unable, legally, to vary their plans to any significant degree which will lead to a situation where only certain treatments are covered. Changes to coverage will have to be approved by some form of state agency. Administrative costs will go through the roof as mandated procedures are reconciled with optional treatments and decisions on reimbursement levels are negotiated. Eventually there will have to be a decision made as to how to contain all these costs and odds are that the decision will be made to hand everything over to a government (socialized) system in an effort to "protect" the taxpayer.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks