or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind? - Page 6

Poll Results: What would you Consider an acceptable reform of Health Care?

 
  • 60% (15)
    Full Gov't health care with public option
  • 0% (0)
    Full Gov't health care no public option
  • 4% (1)
    Gov't care only for low income who cannot afford their own plan
  • 0% (0)
    A gov't instituted health exchange or Co-op.
  • 4% (1)
    Gov't vouchers or tax breaks to constituents for purchase of health insurance.
  • 12% (3)
    One of the above with tort reform and follow through on medicare savings.
  • 4% (1)
    Legislation on Tort reform and follow through on medicare savings only.
  • 16% (4)
    Close it all down for Gov't involvment and let the free market work.
  • 0% (0)
    Leave it alone, things are fine as is.
  • 0% (0)
    My option is not up here! (Please explain.)
25 Total Votes  
post #201 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I take your point about the benefits of personal responsibility and facing the consequences of your own life decisions and that should be encouraged.

I'd really appreciate your willingness to have a civil and rational discussion. I suspect we disagree on things, but it is refreshing to have a civil discourse. Thanks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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 understand this situation arises which is why I would like to see us first make changes that move people away from employer-provided health insurance. I think this would go a very long way to solving these exact kind of problems (and a number of others as well I suspect). Probably the quickest and simplest way would be to eliminate any employer mandates to provide this and to "level the playing field" with regard to the tax treatment of health insurance between those who are employees vs. those who are not employees of big companies. In other words, make changes that get people buying health insurance separately from their employer (just like we do with house, car and life insurance).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I just believe that care should be accessible and affordable to all as well and that requires IMO a single payer system too.

I would like to see both health care and health insurance to be accessible and affordable to all but I disagree that this can be truly accomplished without significant sacrifices and government (i.e., politically-based) rationing. I further believe that by finding ways to introduce much greater competition in the health care services and health insurance markets and reducing or eliminating the distortions that government intervention has already created (which create a variety of perverse incentives) can move us a long way to achieving that goal. I know that many people disagree with me on this.
post #202 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I'd really appreciate your willingness to have a civil and rational discussion. I suspect we disagree on things, but it is refreshing to have a civil discourse. Thanks!

Fart.
post #203 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I'd really appreciate your willingness to have a civil and rational discussion. I suspect we disagree on things, but it is refreshing to have a civil discourse. Thanks!




I understand this situation arises which is why I would like to see us first make changes that move people away from employer-provided health insurance. I think this would go a very long way to solving these exact kind of problems (and a number of others as well I suspect). Probably the quickest and simplest way would be to eliminate any employer mandates to provide this and to "level the playing field" with regard to the tax treatment of health insurance between those who are employees vs. those who are not employees of big companies. In other words, make changes that get people buying health insurance separately from their employer (just like we do with house, car and life insurance).




I would like to see both health care and health insurance to be accessible and affordable to all but I disagree that this can be truly accomplished without significant sacrifices and government (i.e., politically-based) rationing. I further believe that by finding ways to introduce much greater competition in the health care services and health insurance markets and reducing or eliminating the distortions that government intervention has already created (which create a variety of perverse incentives) can move us a long way to achieving that goal. I know that many people disagree with me on this.

Thanks too for not assuming the worst about me asking you questions when I've made some damning statements about some peoples motives. You clearly have pursued this issue in ways I have not and it's certainly given me a better idea of where your coming from. I want to, tomorrow anyway, to look further into where insurance companies are getting better results, especially abroad, however I find it hard to imagine that the less well off will ever be better served with the folks running these companies at the moment than a single payer system. And that's a whole lot of unnecessary misery, at least compared to the UK.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #204 of 383
I am still hearing the sound of crickets. I guess it's not "civil" to ask a straight-forward question and expect an answer.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #205 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

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?)

Not to worry, your problems don't really exist.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #206 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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.

Ah. The "If you like x so much why don't you marry it?' argument.

What that has to do with this discussion is beyond me. I'm not eleven years old. And France is a right wing country and has been for years, as all informed Europeans already know. Still, there is absolutely no way in hell they're going to abolish socialised medicine in France. And yes, we're seriously discussing moving back there. I spent the first seven years of my life in France.

So, er... na na na na, you smell like dog poo. I guess.
post #207 of 383
I have offered you statistics produced by the World Health Organisation that prove that the American health care system does not serve its citizens as well as 36 other nations, and that America would be best served by following the Fremch example.

You rejected these statistics and came back with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Show us all that:

1. cost per person includes all costs (both monetary and non-monetary) and is measured and calculated the same way in the comparative countries.

2. life expectancy and infant mortality is measured and calculated the same way in the comparative countries and corrects for factors unrelated to the health care system.

3. "quality of the facilities" is objectively determined and measured and calculated in the same way in the comparative countries.

4. doctors per head of population is a meaningful measure of actual health care provided.

That's all you have to do to make sure your evidence is actually proof of what you claim.

Finally, since we're being all objective and all that. Are there any measures at all (e.g., cancer survival and mortality rates, access to treatment for chronic diseases , access to preventive cancer screening , wait times, etc.) in which the U.S. out ranks these other countries that should be included so as to have a complete picture of health care in each country?

Like I wrote before, no statistics will be good enough for you. This objection is absolutely no surprise.

These statistics were generated according to as closely similar methods of data collection as possible, as the WHO spreadsheet explains. The methodology's there. But you haven't read it. As for cancer survival rates, it seems that these vary from country to country, as I'm sure you know.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200...ary-by-country

But your objections are not to do with the quality of the evidence but what they describe, which is that the American health care system is not very good and needs to be changed and that it can be done without turning a nation into a communist state.
post #208 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

and that America would be best served by following the Fremch example.

Now you have jumped the gun haven't you. First since you have some statistics (which may not be the best measure and may not be consistent among countries and may hide distortions that make direct comparisons invalid) and arrived that the conclusion "that America would be best served by following the Fremch example".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Like I wrote before, no statistics will be good enough for you.

Assume what you like. Those are perfectly reasonable questions for anyone to ask about statistics being used to compare different countries and purportedly "prove" some conclusion about that comparison. Let's take infant mortality rate as an example:

There's a lot of good stuff in here: Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe, but here's what it says in the end:

Quote:
Much of the high infant mortality rate in the United States is due to the high percentage of preterm births.

Quote:
Using direct standardization (10), we applied the U.S. gestational-age specific infant mortality rates to Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age. If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births—a decline of 33%.



So this raises the question then of whether the higher percentage of preterm births is caused by the health care system. And in what way this causal relationship works. By this I mean, is it that the health care system is so bad that more women are having preterm births or is it because the health care system is so good that pregnancies that, in other times and places, would have been miscarriages are now getting further along and become preterm births?

More on all of this here.

As far as life expectancy...first I'd argue that the magnitude of differences are not really significant. When you look at and compare the current numbers and trends of all the western developed countries you see this. Everyone is trending the same way. They are clustered along the same line. Also, there is no word from the Business Week article you provided that tell us how those figures are aggregated (i.e., are they weighted by gender and race which can significantly affect life expectancy). Finally, what other correlative factors (beyond the health care system) affect life expectancy? There must be other factors because countries with varying degrees of "socialized medicine"/"universal health care"/"single payer" systems are spread along the spectrum here, all trending teh same way, all clustered around the same numbers.

The whole point is that you have to determine whether the statistics that have been chosen are:

1. relevant
2. actually indicative of the effectiveness of the health care system or indicative of other factors (or some combination)
3. collected, calculated and aggregated consistently in comparative situations

When you try to boil things down to a few simple aggregate statistics when covering something as vast and complex as the health care and well being of millions of people, you get into trouble. It's never as simple as that.

For example some statistics (e.g., per-capita spending, doctors and hospital beds per-capita) are either irrelevant or not indicative of the actual effectiveness of the health care system. Other statistics have comparative problems as I have pointed out.

It's just not as simplistic as "France good. America bad."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

These statistics were generated according to as closely similar methods of data collection as possible, as the WHO spreadsheet explains. The methodology's there. But you haven't read it.

Do you have a link?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

But your objections are not to do with the quality of the evidence

My questions are about the statistics you have provide which you claim prove your claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

which is that the American health care system is not very good and needs to be changed and that it can be done without turning a nation into a communist state.

I don't agree that the American health care system "is not very good". That is a broad generalization without merit.

I do agree that is has problems and these problems are not only fixable without a government-run solution but are, in fact, primarily caused by current government interventions into it.

I do agree that changes are needed and that the best changes would be for the government to extract itself from it in a major way.

I don't agree that the current proposals will actually fix the problems and will actually make things worse.
post #209 of 383
More crickets.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #210 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

More crickets.

Pay attention.

When you can explain to me where, when and how you can 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) for that event.
  • 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) for that event.
  • Life insurance for a life that has a terminal illness or has already ended!

Then we can talk. Until then I can only assume you are looking for something other than insurance for health care. If so, come right out and say it.

Now, you tell me (because all I'm hearing is crickets on this question): How will they overcome the reality of the basic laws of economics in the utopian government-run health care system?
post #211 of 383
That's not even close to an answer. You make huge assumptions that don't have even a hailing relationship to reality.

Nobody is asking for health insurance after they become ill. Quite to the contrary. A pre-exisiting condition simply makes you uninsurable, and if you don't know that, then you don't know the first thing about health insurance. Nobody will insure you. Nobody. And why should they, when they can sell insurance to people without a health history? That is the basic economics of this situation. It's called "cherry picking," and it is the way the industry works.

In fact, insurance companies frequently cancel customers when they start making claims, leaving them with huge unpaid hospital bills. The only recourse these customers have are laws which prohibit arbitrary rescissions. Sometimes they succeed before they go bankrupt, sometimes not. But that's government intervention in the marketplace, which I'm sure you are dead set against.

As an uninsurable person, I have first-hand experience with this. You almost certainly have none. This is not theoretical stuff to many of us, but a daily reality.

Health insurance is not car insurance. Health is not a controllable risk, except at the margins, and it is also FAR more expensive and unlike driving a car, utterly essential. So the analogy is not remotely apt. These are the basis economic realities of health insurance, which you pretend do not exist. But they do, as anyone with experience with this will tell you.

Another basic reality of the health insurance industry is that individual policy holders are road kill. Even assuming an individual can get a policy (which if they have a health history, they simply cannot), they will pay rates somewhere close to double what a group policy holder pays. The solution is to allow individuals to buy into group plans which give them more buying power. But I'm quite sure you are against that, too, if the laws have to be passed to make it happen.

Where you get the idea that anyone is seeking a "utopian" health care system is beyond me. Most of us are seeking pragmatic solutions to practical problems.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #212 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

A pre-exisiting condition simply makes you uninsurable, and if you don't know that, then you don't know the first thing about health insurance.

For that condition and issues related to that condition. In fact I have had experience with this in which someone in my family was unable to obtain insurance for a specific pre-existing condition. That person was able to be generally insured, but we had to accept a rider to exclude that specific condition. Furthermore, years later when that condition no longer existed, that person is able to be fully insured.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

But that's government intervention in the marketplace, which I'm sure you are dead set against.

Wrong. That would be a perfectly appropriate role for a (limited) government: enforcement and adjudication of contract disputes and/or fraud.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

As an uninsurable person, I have first-hand experience with this. You almost certainly have none.

I do. Don't pretend you know me at that level. I have tried to not make assumptions about you and your life. Pay me the same courtesy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Health insurance is not car insurance.

Insurance is insurance. It is a concept.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Health is not a controllable risk, except at the margins,

Not true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

These are the basis economic realities of health insurance, which you pretend do not exist.

I do not. In contrast you seem to think that the basic laws of economics like supply, demand, marginal utility, etc. Not to mention concepts like moral hazard do not exist and can simply be swept aside by legislative fiat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Another basic reality of the health insurance industry is that individual policy holders are road kill. Even assuming an individual can get a policy (which if they have a health history, they simply cannot), they will pay rates somewhere close to double what a group policy holder pays.

Thanks for pointing out one of the flaws in a system that has come about due to government plicies, rules, regulations and laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The solution is to allow individuals to buy into group plans which give them more buying power. But I'm quite sure you are against that, too, if the laws have to be passed to make it happen.

If laws are required to compel one entity to do something like what you have suggested then yes. If people wish to collectively bargain with an insurance carrier they should be free to do so voluntarily and non-coercively.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Most of us are seeking pragmatic solutions to practical problems.

Not from what I see.

I think I'll take another break from chatting with you thank you very much.
post #213 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Insurance is insurance. It is a concept.

Car versus people, priceless.
post #214 of 383
As well you should since clearly you have no answers that are of any use to anyone. Curiously, you accuse others of utopianism, when in fact it is you who think that if the entire system was modeled to suit your ideology, that all problems would be solved. That just happens to be dictionary definition utopianism.

We shall pause to admire the irony, as the music of the crickets resumes.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #215 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

As well you should since clearly you have no answers that are of any use to me.

tftfy
post #216 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

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.

Sounds good in theory, doesn't it? The problem is it's pure fiction. How could one expect that costs would go down because we are covering more people with no worry about pre-existing conditions? And how in the world could we think that government involvement would actually decrease bureaucracy?




Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

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.

Then why is the US Healthcare system still the most technologically advanced system in the world? Why do people from all over the world come here for treatment, surgery, etc?

Quote:

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.

First, I don't care how much money you spend on your military. The fact is that because you don't spend even 1/10th of what we do, you can afford to spend more on social programs, like healthcare.

Secondly, there is no way that you spend "less of your taxes" on healthcare and cover everyone for free. I'm not even sure what you're getting at here.

Third, it's not true "in nearly every place universal coverage exists." Look at Great Britain...the system is a nightmare.

Quote:


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?

Believe it or not, your system is probably better than what has been proposed. It's a bureaucratic nightmare, born of back room deals and shady compromises, not to mention special interests and hidden agendas, such as the desire for government to gain more control. I don't want nationalized healthcare, but given the choice between the House bill and your system, I would choose your system as the clear lesser of two evils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

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?)

While I'm not in that situation, I definitely agree that it's the middle class that gets hosed economically.

Quote:

....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.....

Agreed.


A public option cannot peacefully co-exist with a private system for very long, at least not the way things are structured in this country. Unless you're talking about the government taxing and buying everyone private insurance, there won't be an "option" for long.

As with all things government, the "option" will start out providing great benefits at a low price. This will cause two things to happen: 1) Employees will start choosing the plan over private plans and 2) Employers, realizing the lower cost of the public option and the resulting drop in employees choosing private plans, will DROP those private plans.

Guess what happens then? The government, having established a defacto monopoly on health insurance, will raise rates and reduce benefits. This will not be a "competitive option" or even an "option" at all.

Let me put it this way: What if you could choose, right now, to take all of your social security contributions plus interest, and invest them in a private plan---effectively opting out? How many millions do you think would do it? That's because the government has destroyed social security and made it an inefficient nightmare, all while raising taxes and limiting benefits. Is there any reason to think that healthcare would be different?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #217 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Car versus people, priceless.

Actually, I'm grateful for the candor, be it intentional or otherwise. At the beginning of this thread I was greeted with protests when I suggested that many of the opponents to health care reform were in fact indifferent to the plight of the uninsured and the other flaws in the system. Do we have any doubt now that this is true?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #218 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Actually, I'm grateful for the candor, be it intentional or otherwise. At the beginning of this thread I was greeted with protests when I suggested that many of the opponents to health care reform were in fact indifferent to the plight of the uninsured and the other flaws in the system. Do we have any doubt now that this is true?

It's interesting that all you seem to have are insults. All you can do is toss out accusations of ignorance, indifference, uncaring and even outright dishonesty. You cannot fathom how someone cannot agree with you and come to the same conclusions, so the only solution to this conundrum is that those who do not must obviously be indifferent, uncaring, ignorant and dishonest about all those things to boot.

post #219 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me put it this way: What if you could choose, right now, to take all of your social security contributions plus interest, and invest them in a private plan---effectively opting out? How many millions do you think would do it? That's because the government has destroyed social security and made it an inefficient nightmare, all while raising taxes and limiting benefits. Is there any reason to think that healthcare would be different?

Ummm....

You're comparing people opting out of a public option (Social Security) and into a private one, with people opting out of a private option and into a public one (Health Care).

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #220 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How could one expect that costs would go down because we are covering more people with no worry about pre-existing conditions?

Yeah, fuck the poor saps with pre-existing conditions, wouldn't want to pay for them.
Quote:
Then why is the US Healthcare system still the most technologically advanced system in the world? Why do people from all over the world come here for treatment, surgery, etc?

You left the thread when it was brought up that the US isn't the only destination for treatment, surgery, etc.
Google Medical Tourism. and experience the real world, not your myopic one.
Quote:
First, I don't care how much money you spend on your military. The fact is that because you don't spend even 1/10th of what we do, you can afford to spend more on social programs, like healthcare.

So glad I live in Canada.
Quote:
Secondly, there is no way that you spend "less of your taxes" on healthcare and cover everyone for free. I'm not even sure what you're getting at here.

You left that thread as well when it was shown that we do.
Quote:
Third, it's not true "in nearly every place universal coverage exists." Look at Great Britain...the system is a nightmare.

So glad I live in Canada.
Quote:
Believe it or not, your system is probably better than what has been proposed. It's a bureaucratic nightmare, born of back room deals and shady compromises, not to mention special interests and hidden agendas, such as the desire for government to gain more control. I don't want nationalized healthcare, but given the choice between the House bill and your system, I would choose your system as the clear lesser of two evils.

Blame the tea baggers.
Quote:
While I'm not in that situation, I definitely agree that it's the middle class that gets hosed economically.

So, so glad I live in Canada.

The rest of your post is fear mongering without basis.
post #221 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Actually, I'm grateful for the candor, be it intentional or otherwise. At the beginning of this thread I was greeted with protests when I suggested that many of the opponents to health care reform were in fact indifferent to the plight of the uninsured and the other flaws in the system. Do we have any doubt now that this is true?

To give the serf the benefit... I think he does care, he just can't see past his ideology, thinking it's the cure all, when it's obviously failed in so many ways.
post #222 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

It's interesting that all you seem to have are insults. All you can do is toss out accusations of ignorance, indifference, uncaring and even outright dishonesty. You cannot fathom how someone cannot agree with you and come to the same conclusions, so the only solution to this conundrum is that those who do not must obviously be indifferent, uncaring, ignorant and dishonest about all those things to boot.


This is beyond ridiculous, verging on the absurd. Apparently I have "insulted" you by pointing out that your proposed solutions don't address actual problems, for reasons which I have explained in substantial detail. For the record, I never called you ignorant, or dishonest, so it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I have. What I have pointed out is that if you (along with many other opponents to health care reform), propose solutions that do nothing to fix actual problems, that it's impossible to see where you care about these problems. Your comparison of health insurance to car insurance just brings this into sharp relief; it tells anyone with an interest in knowing what you believe.

You can resist the uncaring label all you like, but by your own words, you've made it all to easy too see through your objections.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #223 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

To give the serf the benefit... I think he does care, he just can't see past his ideology, thinking it's the cure all, when it's obviously failed in so many ways.

Caring isn't a theory, and it isn't a set of beliefs. To be real, it has to be reflected in what you actually say and do. Sometimes we have to point out the huge gulf between what people say they believe and what their words and deeds tell us about what they actually believe. Imagine how our political system could be changed if politicians were held to that standard. I think everybody should be.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #224 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

This is beyond ridiculous, verging on the absurd. Apparently I have "insulted" you by pointing out that your proposed solutions don't address actual problems, for reasons which I have explained in substantial detail.

Actually you have not pointed out anything in"substantial detail" let alone how my proposed solutions don't address actual problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

For the record, I never called you ignorant, or dishonest, so it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I have. What I have pointed out is that if you (along with many other opponents to health care reform), propose solutions that do nothing to fix actual problems, that it's impossible to see where you care about these problems.

For the record you have repeatedly said and or implied that those who either have not come to the same conclusions you have or cannot explain their own solutions to your satisfaction either don't care about the uninsured, don't know (ignorance) and are simply hiding and not owning up to this fact (dishonest).

Furthermore, you have actually said nothing that shows in anyway how my proposed solutions do nothing to fix actual problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Your comparison of health insurance to car insurance just brings this into sharp relief; it tells anyone with an interest in knowing what you believe.

Yes, it should tell anyone with the ability to comprehend that I understand what insurance is and is designed for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You can resist the uncaring label all you like, but by your own words, you've made it all to easy too see through your objections.

And there you go again.
post #225 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Caring isn't a theory, and it isn't a set of beliefs. To be real, it has to be reflected in what you actually say and do. Sometimes we have to point out the huge gulf between what people say they believe and what their words and deeds tell us about what they actually believe. Imagine how our political system could be changed if politicians were held to that standard. I think everybody should be.

He really believes the free market, if allowed to run without reins, would solve all of mankinds ills.
The only problem with that ideal, are people.
post #226 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

He really believes the free market, if allowed to run without reins, would solve all of mankinds ills.
The only problem with that ideal, are people.

I know, that's it exactly. It's not like I have not been exposed to these theories before; I am very familiar with them. The real problem with them is not so much people, as reality.

The bottom line, according to these theories, is that the market and the market alone provides what people actually need. If the market doesn't provide health care for sick people, for instance, then they really don't need it. You can point out all day long that health care really isn't a market good for the most part, and unless you're prepared to throw sick people who can't afford care into dumpsters, that we have to pay for their health care somehow -- but this cuts no ice, because the concept of anything not being a market good simply doesn't compute with the believers.

What makes these theories so incomplete is that they simply refuse to take into account that markets alone do not make a caring world, that they only make a market world. Markets often fail to provide what people need, and they always have -- but the theories can't accommodate that fact. We don't live in the 19th century anymore, a time when it was quite socially acceptable to express the opinion that people who got trampled upon deserved no better. A person would be shunned if they said that today. So if they choose to believe in 19th century concepts without 19th century results, they have to concoct an elaborate ideological facade to dress it up. Behind the facade is the same old same old, only we're not supposed to notice.

But "there I go again," telling it like it is.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #227 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Yeah, fuck the poor saps with pre-existing conditions, wouldn't want to pay for them.

Yea I'll just sit back and wait 'til I get cancer and THEN buy a policy. Maybe we could have public option insurance agents go out with EMTs and sign people up at traffic accidents. That's fair right? Not pay a dime before hand and wait until you need a big pay out to start paying in? 'cause you know it's so gosh darn unfair of those unamerican evil mongering insurance companies to want someone to sign up before they actually need insurance.
post #228 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Yea I'll just sit back and wait 'til I get cancer and THEN buy a policy. Maybe we could have public option insurance agents go out with EMTs and sign people up at traffic accidents. That's fair right? Not pay a dime before hand and wait until you need a big pay out to start paying in? 'cause you know it's so gosh darn unfair of those unamerican evil mongering insurance companies to want someone to sign up before they actually need insurance.

The part you are missing is that you are not supposed to make money on the suffering of people. Which is all insurance is. Right? However, we should cover all aspects of health problems which are not free and simply accept the fact that it will have to be paid for one way or another, so why wouldn't you do what Canada has done, or many other countries?

Lets just take it one step further. While we are talking about costs and how insurance companies suck. Let's eliminate the need for insurance companies altogether. Hospitals may only charge a flat rate for time spent with a doctor. Regardless of the condition of the patient. Knee scrape, flat rate. Run over by bus, flat rate. Need a cast, flat rate. Need pins to hold you together and brain surgery. Flat rate. Make the rate 50-100 an hour or whatever is determined to be fair and watch medical bills drop like a rock. After all, those greedy doctors and hospitals are where the enormous costs come from, right?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #229 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Ummm....

You're comparing people opting out of a public option (Social Security) and into a private one, with people opting out of a private option and into a public one (Health Care).


No, I'm comparing Return on Investment and value for the money. The point is that if the public option is cheap and offers good coverage, people will sign up in droves, eventually eliminating private insurance plans. Then, the government will have a single payer system by default. It will be a monopoly that eventually you can't opt back out of. People will choose the best value, as will employers. But, eventually that choice will go away entirely.

My comparison to SS exists to show what we can expect from a government run entitlement program. Healthcare will start out taxing a small amount and offering substantial benefits. At the end, just the opposite will be true. And by that time, there will be no way out. It will be Social Security, Reloaded.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #230 of 383
Here's a racial angle on the health care "reform" debate. Interesting perspective anyway.
post #231 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The part you are missing is that you are not supposed to make money on the suffering of people. Which is all insurance is. Right? However, we should cover all aspects of health problems which are not free and simply accept the fact that it will have to be paid for one way or another, so why wouldn't you do what Canada has done, or many other countries?

Lets just take it one step further. While we are talking about costs and how insurance companies suck. Let's eliminate the need for insurance companies altogether. Hospitals may only charge a flat rate for time spent with a doctor. Regardless of the condition of the patient. Knee scrape, flat rate. Run over by bus, flat rate. Need a cast, flat rate. Need pins to hold you together and brain surgery. Flat rate. Make the rate 50-100 an hour or whatever is determined to be fair and watch medical bills drop like a rock. After all, those greedy doctors and hospitals are where the enormous costs come from, right?

Huh? How can I miss a point that wasn't the subject of my reply? I may as well say that you missed the point that revolving justice system does nothing to address drug addition.
post #232 of 383
From The New Atlantis -- why the healthcare debate in the democratically controlled Congress isn't producing anything.

Quote:
Reviewing this legislative landscape, its suddenly dawning on all concerned that the bills moving in Congress wont come close to bending the curve after all. Thats the thrust of a piece today in the New York Times, as well as one from last week in the Washington Post. Of course, even as House members and Senators shy away from tough decisions, they are not nearly as reticent about extending new health entitlement commitments. Thus, it is now abundantly clear that if anything is produced by this legislative process, it will be a bill that piles more unaffordable entitlement commitments on top of the unreformed ones already on the books.

And so whats the White House response to this alarming state of fiscal affairs? As recounted in the Times piece, Emanuel blames the limits of politics. Lets be honest, Emanuel apparently stated in a recent interview. The goal isnt to see whether I can pass this through the executive board of the Brookings Institution. Im passing it through the United State Congress with people who represent constituents.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/d...l-vs-obamacare

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #233 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Huh? How can I miss a point that wasn't the subject of my reply? I may as well say that you missed the point that revolving justice system does nothing to address drug addition.

The sarcasm should have been obvious, but perhaps a few smileys later and the point would have been there. The post was only half serious.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #234 of 383
It just gets better and better:

Quote:
A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

This mess is going to end up one way -- no reform and oodles and oodles of more entitlements -- that is all these people are capable of.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111402597.html

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #235 of 383
Did you see the part where the health care bill sabotages tort reform? What was that that Obama said? Oh wait it was a lie.

Hope Change Hope Change Hope Change La La la Hope Change Hope Change Hope Change!
post #236 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Did you see the part where the health care bill sabotages tort reform? What was that that Obama said? Oh wait it was a lie.

Hope Change Hope Change Hope Change La La la Hope Change Hope Change Hope Change!

Can you post the bit you are speaking of? I keep hoping for change, but the only change I get is my paycheck, slashed 10%.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #237 of 383
Funny how the opponents of health care reform have positioned themselves as the defenders of Medicare. Funny, in a nauseating sort of way. Cynical politics, anyone?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #238 of 383
Buried on page 1431: Potemkin tort reform


Quote:
Commentarys Jennifer Rubin notices:
Quote:
A friend points out a little nugget of absurdity and political mendacity in the Pelosi health-care bill. Remember Obamas effort to try a test for tort reform? (We dont actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosis bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990-page spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try alternative medical liability laws. But look you dont get the incentive if you have a law that would limit attorneys fees or impose caps on damages.

In other words, Congress is providing a financial incentive to uncap damages. Marvelous.
post #239 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then why is the US Healthcare system still the most technologically advanced system in the world? Why do people from all over the world come here for treatment, surgery, etc?

It's true that the US has more high tech ways to separate patients and insurance companies from a greater quantity of their money. They still have lower outcomes than most other developed nations, and even a few third world ones.



Quote:
First, I don't care how much money you spend on your military. The fact is that because you don't spend even 1/10th of what we do, you can afford to spend more on social programs, like healthcare.

You brought it up, not me. And I told you, what we fund our military is not a factor of what we can or can't afford, it's political will. The dominant (left wing) political party here has cut funding to the military drastically, and instead spent that money on other things.


Quote:
Secondly, there is no way that you spend "less of your taxes" on healthcare and cover everyone for free. I'm not even sure what you're getting at here.

Per capita, US government spending on health care is higher than Canadian spending on healthcare. It really is that simple. Plus you get to pay even more to actually get insured, and still end up with far less coverage than we have.

Quote:
Third, it's not true "in nearly every place universal coverage exists." Look at Great Britain...the system is a nightmare.

I'd rather have the Canadian system than the UK one, but Great Britain is a dream compared to what I keep reading and hearing about what you have.
post #240 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I'd rather have the Canadian system than the UK one, but Great Britain is a dream compared to what I keep reading and hearing about what you have.

Only if providing health care to people is what matters. As you can see, some believe we are only meant to receive health care when doing so doesn't violate their particular ideological principles.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind?