Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind? - Page 5

Well...to a certain extent, yes. I don't have a responsibility to provide you healthcare. The fact is I chose a profession with certain trade-offs. I have more time off, but cannot choose when I take it. I have slightly shorter hours, but I am bound to them whether I have work to do or not. I have a great benefits package, but my salary is not as high as it would be in the private sector.

In other words, I made choices as we all do every day. One of the results of my choices is having a great healthcare plan. Now, if you'd like make it easier for people to get the kind of coverage I have (make it more affordable), I'm all for that. I just don't think government is the answer here. Why can't we have tax credits, tort reform, portability, etc?

I've got mine, so screw you. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how some people think. I suppose we ought to be grateful for some degree of candor.

I myself chose to have cancer. A bad choice I know but there you go.

I'd encourage you to move to France to take full advantage of all they have to offer with their wonderful, forward-thinking semi-presidential representative democratic republic.

Incidentally, it seems even the French are changing in their typically liberal/socialist political views.

While I wouldn't put it like that, the concept of providing for one's self and family is one upon which this nation was founded. I am not responsible for your healthcare. However, I may choose, on my own, to help you. The government isn't supposed to steal the money I earned so you can have healthcare. What if you made crappy choices in life? What if you're lazy and don't feel like a getting a job that provides decent benefits?

If you truly gave a damn about more people getting insurance, you'd be focusing the solutions I mentioned. The fact is, though, that healthcare is but another vehicle for you to try and mold the country into progressive quaso-socialist state you think it should be. It has nothing to do with helping people.

The hysterical irony is that people like you, not national healthcare opponents, are the ones that are the callous manipulators of the poor, minorities, et al. You might as well just come out and admit that you've declared war on the middle class, capitalism and traditional American values. At least that would be honest.

Prejudicial or not, that's called keeping it simple for the group think.
You didn't expect rational thought concerning ideology did you?

Just like the "we don't sell french fries" crap hysteria.

You're an American and in French eyes, bulls eye.

As an aside,
if you were captured, detained by a terror cell,
do you really think your assertion that you don't adhere to
your governments actions will save you, do you?

And on that note...

You're already paying for others health care via your premiums.

How about adding more people to your plan to defray costs.
What about eliminating some of the middlemen to defray costs further.

Why worry about the jobs lost when you're better off money wise.

Yeah, you're an island.

Whatever.

I can see you're having a hard time understanding how others think.

Not at all. I fully understand that others think as you've described but I can't control someone else's thinking. I can do my best to explain to them when I think their thinking is faulty, but that's about it.

Well, You lost them when you said there thinking is faulty.

First impressions are what counts.

Try, you misunderstood me.

Then try and convert them.

We have consistently better outcomes, and lower mortality rates almost right across the board compared to the US. No one is ever refused, there is no such thing as a medical bankruptcy, we have total portability, total choice in care providers, and the phrase "pre-existing condition" has no meaning. The bureaucracy is not really involved at the healthcare consumer level. Doctors bill the govt insurance plan, the patient doesn't see any of it.

That we might underfund other things is a completely separate issue (the Military issue is a lot more political than financial). We also spend far less of our taxes on healthcare than you do, and that covers everyone.To do it right is LESS expensive than the way you guys are doing it now, and that's the case is pretty much every place where universal coverage exists. And more people makes it even more economical because your cost dispersal can be even more efficient. Volume is cheaper.

From what I've read, the bill before your house right now still looks very weak compared to what we've got. In what way does it go further than what we have?

You're assuming I would actually say that. Sheesh. I very likely would try to both further clarify my own position, statements, etc. as well as better understand theirs and, if I felt their thinking was incorrect, then try to explain that (and why). All the while trying to remain civil.

Defending the indefensible is par for the right.

The status quote at all cost, defend the bottom line, even at the cost of your bottom line.

Well, how does it feel having to defend the best health care system in the he world to a bunch of lowly Frenchman-women.

The defense is the problem.

Huh?

Lost the thread of the thread huh?

Sorry. You lost me. I don't know if you mean to. I'm honestly trying to keep up and be reasonable here.

The French, shame, there system is better than yours, jeesh, 8 Canadian beer and I remember the thread.

Oh right...now we're back to begging the question about French health care superiority.

(sigh)

And you forgot where I came in. \

A real knee-slapper, that one. You always know when the point rhetorical desperation is reached when someone goes for the "people like you" argument. (This time, underlined so we won't miss it.)

How to Cure Health Care:

Well, to use an SDW saying, if true, what is the problem, the insurer, the employer or the government, well?

I see the problem as multi-faceted. Certain government policies, mandates, regulations, laws, taxation arrangements, etc. have create "incentives" (distortions) that have, cumulatively, created where we are now.

As the link elaborates on, everyone responds to incentives. Employers want and need employees. In the face of certain government policies, mandates, regulations, laws, taxation arrangements, etc. they will make adjustments to achieve the goal of attracting employees (offering medical insurance was one of those things). As they created more generous medical insurance plans which paid for more (and the employee paid for less) employees respond by using more medical services more often (demand rises).

When demand rises in the face of either static supply (medical service providers) or supply that does not rise as fast as demand rises, prices rise. That's exactly what we see happening.

Insurance companies, since they are the ones paying, start doing things to reduce payments.

I could go on and on.

There are definitely systematic problems of various (sometimes perverse) incentives many of which have been created by trying to "fix" the problems using coercive government "solutions".

Unfortunately most people are merely looking at the symptoms and not any deeper to the real causes. Most people are reacting emotionally and superficially to the symptoms they see and stopping there.

And after the thrill is gone, what's the excuse then.
It costs to much?

What?

When you are sick, emotion can't really be ignored.
That's why I'm glad I live in Canada, been there, done the emotion bit, still here, solvent, father dead.
Sad, not broke.

What I meant was that with regard to the larger issue of health care reform, people are looking at it and making judgements and taking sides based more on their immediate emotional reaction to what they see (e.g., 47 million people with no insurance) without stepping back and looking into the deeper causes of these issues. As a result we risk making more of the same kind of mistakes made in the past and risk making things worse, much worse simply because we haven't taken the time to truly understand the underlying issues, incentives, causes, distortions, etc.

The health of a loved one is emotional, if you think or believe otherwise, well you ain't of this world.

If you have a loved one that can't afford care and stand by while they suffer, that's on you.

In Canada, it's a no brainer.
In the states, get out the calculator.

Baloney. You may prefer to believe this because you think it makes your position more tenable, but the evidence for this view comes primarily from inside your own mind. I have asked you several times now to tell me how, under your approach (whatever that is), a person with a pre-existing condition could obtain medical insurance. You have utterly ignored this question each time -- which is hardly emotional issue, but a completely practical one. So if you have actual solutions to actual problems, then out with them -- or you need to stop accusing other people of "emotional reactions."

You still seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm talking about the approach and attitude at large of people toward the larger issue of health care reform.

Many people see something wrong. They see unfortunate situations and circumstances. They see statistics. They see what they think are injustices.

And their attitude doesn't really move much beyond there. It becomes simply "sumthin' gotta be done 'bout dat!" But often fail to understand the deeper issues and causes. They stop at blaming "greedy" insurance companies but look no further into why things have come to be the way they are. Then some eloquent politician comes along and offers a no-pain, no-cost solution. He sways them with fine sounding rhetoric. It all sounds so good! The estimates of what will happen without doing something are dire and catastrophic! The estimates of what will happen when we follow this plan are glorious and magical. Lower costs! More choices! No one is ever denied anything. Everyone is better off! Of course the failed predictions and promises of the past are forgotten or ignored.

I see this in blogs, comments on blog, internet discussion boards, all-out professional journalist articles and news reports, from politicians (who, in some cases probably do know better but are simply evil power-mongers who couldn't give a shit about actually solving the problem beyond the next election), etc. I see it everywhere.

Again, I think Camille Paglia put it very well:


The people who desire, support and promote the current reform proposals (or minor variations thereof) are silent when asked how they expect to overcome economic reality (which these plans require in order to come even close to achieving their promises).

Most people don't have $100,000 or more lying around to pay for medical expenses though. I agree that if, under odd circumstances, generally, people had to pay directly out of their own pockets for health care that it's likely they'd spend more time looking after themselves and double checking that they actually required a certain treatment. However, that's just not a realistic proposition because under that scenario when people got ill they wouldn't get care because they wouldn't have the money to cover it. The more serious the care needed the less likely they could afford it, negating the purpose of health care.

Agreed, and that is what insurance is for. But what we call health "insurance" today has evolved into something else in which all medical expenses are expected to be paid by someone else.

Some analogies include:

Homeowner's insurance that pays for painting, mowing the lawn, replacing burned out light bulbs and old furnace filters, etc.

Car insurance that pays for changing the oil, replacing old or flat tires, filling up with gas, etc.

Insurance is designed to cover the possible but unlikely events that might cause damage your home, car, body, etc. You pool your risk of these events with others because they are unlikely (but possible) and if they were to happen you could be sunk.

But the problem is that health "insurance" in America has evolved beyond this into something else. This is part of the cause of the problems.

To some degree maybe, though the pertinent analogies here would be that the auto insurance company refused to offer insurance to you because of a prior accident. Or they refused because you bought a vehicle that was black.

There are actually comparable analogies in the other insurance sectors. Prior accidents can and do affect your premiums and (sometimes, in extreme cases) your insurability (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care). Certain (freely made) choices in automobile purchases (e.g., sports cars, etc.) can and do affect your premiums (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care).

A better analogy on the pre-existing condition scenario is this:

Trying to get homeowner's insurance for a home that has already burned to the ground, been flooded, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get car insurance for a car that has already been in an accident, been stolen, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get life insurance for a life that has a terminal illness or has already ended!

It is true that previous events can and do effect your premiums and insurability in these other insurance sectors. But usually the insurability (i.e., the ability to even get insurance) is affected by an obvious, regular and continuous pattern of some kind of abuse, fraud, etc. In most other cases you just pay higher premiums.

The problem is that no one really wants health insurance to behave like any other real kind of insurance. What they really want is for someone else to pay for their medical expenses. Period.

Spread the risk, just like it is now.
I'm so glad I live in Canada.

I'd put up some scenarios that but then you'd want links etc. that you'd read the headlines and then ignore and put forth, yeah it's a bitch yada yada but yada yada..

If you have insurance, you are already paying for someone else, that's the nature of it.

I take your point about the benefits of personal responsibility and facing the consequences of your own life decisions and that should be encouraged. However, people get cancer who don't smoke, who eat well, exercise well and even who encourage others to do the same (and don't get paid for it). These people can have cost the insurance companies next to nothing over the years. Even so, if they have insurance and then lose it. By losing their job say. Another insurer won't sign them up because they won't make any money. The person can't afford the out of pocket costs which often leads to bankruptcy or losing their home and assets and that applies in large numbers to those who are actually insured too.

I should say that, despite some of the comments some have made here at PO, I am not against the continuation of private health insurance for those who choose it. I just believe that care should be accessible and affordable to all as well and that requires IMO a single payer system too.

I haven't been to a dentist in years because I can't afford it. (I offset this but religiously brushing and flossing twice a day). I have old glasses. I haven't had a "checkup" in a decade. I have another problem or two I'd like to take care of but can't afford it. I feel like poor people and rich people get care. Poor people get all they want, they get to just walk into an ER, and the hospital writes it off. Not the middle class. Screwed by the rich and the poor. And the stupid that are middle class and vote against their own interest. People like you. (Unless you're a millionaire or you're on WIC or DSS?)


Agreed.