universal healthcare

[thegreekdog]

Player, please read under the following link (on Medicare) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Criticism
Specifically, I will refer you to the costs section. You are putting the blame for the costs of Medicare on the healthcare industry. I have two critiques of that:

(1) Rising costs occur in every facet of life; a loaf of bread costs more now than it did a year ago; don't you think that should have been accounted for when Medicare was put in place? This is simplistic, so I'll move on to point 2.
(2) The government routinely "cuts" Medicare to pay for other things (ostensibly so they don't have to raise taxes and risk losing an election). What happens when the government decides to cut universal healthcare to pay for other things?

On an overarching basis, vis-a-vis your arguments, you routinely argue a different point than what is being discussed. For example, you note that pharmaceutical companies get free patents. That really has nothing to do with this discussion, except that you don't like pharmaceutical companies getting all kinds of breaks.

Finally, I would urge you to read the president's plan. In addition to cutting swaths from Medicare and Medicaid (which politicians routinely get lambasted for and for which the president has not been critiqued for... not surprising), the plan DOES NOT INSURE ALL AMERICANS. I would refer you to George Will's article, which hits the nail on the head. If we can come to a compromise and have a "debit card" for healthcare for low income individuals (Healthfare), that would go towards solving the real problems (people with no health insurance because they cannot afford insurance) and not the fake ones (people with no health insurance because they don't want health insurance).

[PLAYER57832]

Aside from being repeatedly inaccurate you completely missed my point.

I am neither being inaccurate, nor am I missing your point. Your point is just flat out wrong .

The government does not run basically ANYTHING efficiently. Private business has to or they do not exist. Government just sucks more money from you and they are still in the red every time. They show no track record for being able to pull this off unless I'm missing something you know of?

Not true.. at all!

This is the biggest lie put forward by conservatives who's primary interest is being able to have those lucrative government contracts that result from "privatization" of government services.

Blackwater-Cheney are probably the worst example recently, but you can look at the difference between IRS agents and contractors hired by the IRS to do the same jobs.

There are two issues with the government. One, ANY big entity -- corporation OR government has inherent waste. The government compares favorably with the private companies in this regard when they are compared equally.

HOWEVER, they usually are NOT compared equally. Much of what the government does is just not inherently profitable.

National Parks? Lose money -- BUT their real purpose, often thought of as simply to preserve beauty and so forth, is becoming more and more clear and critical -- preserving islands of nature/bioreserves for study and genetic preservation. Not destroying that which God gave us because we aren't ready to understand why they are important.

Post Office? Another topic, but the REAL purpose of a government post office is to allow ready and inexpensive communication between people -- a fundament of a functioning democracy. Again, that purpose is more critical than simply giving a few people some extra money from profit.


Where the government truly IS inefficient is in areas you don't even touch. Things like the NIH doing some of the foremost research in our nation, YET having to GIVE thier research, discoveries away to the company that is decided to best market the product. This is a free gift, with no royalties required! If Dow chemical invents a new chemical, they get to patent it. The US government? Has to give it away for free. Companies are also allowed to go into our National Parks and patent what they find with absolutely NO requirement to pay the taxpayers a cent. Understand, I am not suggesting heavy royalties here, that would kill business. I remember talking to the inventor of part of a girdle (I am being intentionally unclear.. I don't want to be personal), He told me that he asked for 1/4 of a cent for every dollar they made. It was low enough that the company agreed without hesitation, BUT, he made millions. There should be a set, standard fee like that for anything originating from government research or property.

Along those lines, did you know that Walter Reed developed the most effective Malaria drugs in recent times? NOT the pharmaceutical companies. Specifically, during the Vietnahm war, soldiers were dying of malaria, but none of the companies thought it profitable enough to take on the task, so Walter Reed did. However, they were forbidden by law from pushing their case. So, what we see 20 years later is a hospital that lost most of its funding, that was reviled for not doing enough with the little it got. And, no one there could even so much as ASK for a penney.

Why? Becuase if the government did ANY of those things I described above -- took royalties, lobbied for medical funding, etc. ... it would be competing with private industry. THAT is why the government is inefficient, because it suits companies to have it so. Because if it were not so inefficient, they (the private companies) would not be able to compete.

Privatization makes sense for many, many products and services. BUT, there are many areas that simply must be governmental.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to start a new thread on whether the government is efficient.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, please read under the following link (on Medicare) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Criticism
Specifically, I will refer you to the costs section. You are putting the blame for the costs of Medicare on the healthcare industry.

No, I am putting it on an entire broken system. A major factor in why the system is broken is the need for insurance companies to make a profit. Corporate profits can be tricky to discern because they are allowed to discount so many things, but Blue Cross and Clue Shield have been doing well by just about any measure I have seen.

This is not a matter of "bad insurance companies" per se. I definitely DO have a lot of anger against Blue Cross, and I am certainly not the only one! However, they are acting as companies are really supposed to act.. they make profits. THAT is the point. The government doesn't have to make a profit, in fact shouldn't. So, you take the elements of a free market that CAN work in medicine (there are ways, but only tightly controlled) and then put it into the hands of the government. The government, with tight rules to ensure that this doesn't become full of "bridges to nowhere".

One example is in Geisenger Health System in Atoona.

PS the link moved. However, all of that really looks at the surface. The real issues, as I said above (in this post and my previous one) are far deeper.

[thegreekdog]

I respectfully disagree. I think the reason that Medicare is broken is because the US government did not realize what it was getting itself into when it created the program (or else did not care what it was getting itself into). I think the vast majority of things the government does is related to getting re-elected. For example, if the government can promise medical treatment to the elderly to get elected, they will do so, regardless of the future fiscal consequences. To further compound the issue (and to throw social security in the mix), when the government sees a pot of money sitting there, they will not hesitate to use it for other things for which the money was not intended to be used.

[PLAYER57832]

I respectfully disagree. I think the reason that Medicare is broken is because the US government did not realize what it was getting itself into when it created the program (or else did not care what it was getting itself into). I think the vast majority of things the government does is related to getting re-elected. For example, if the government can promise medical treatment to the elderly to get elected, they will do so, regardless of the future fiscal consequences. To further compound the issue (and to throw social security in the mix), when the government sees a pot of money sitting there, they will not hesitate to use it for other things for which the money was not intended to be used.

You are correct and wrong. I don't think ANYBODY could predict what would happen in medical care when this all came about.

As for the rest -- people in government certainly have their vested interests, but so do companies. Elected officials have to, ultimately, answer to we taxpayers if they wish to be re-elected. Companies only marginally have to respond to stockholders. They have to respond to consumers, to a point. HOWEVER, we, the users of insurance and medicine are not the consumers in this system. Doctor's are really not either. That is the problem.

Right now, all these medical decisions are being made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers.. people who often know nothing or little of medicie realities.

The number one cause of high cost is the heavy dependence on emergency rooms. BECAUSE there is no universal health system, indigent people, people with inadequete insurance (note those with NO insurance are only a small part.. the bigger chunk are those with insurance that covers little), have to rely on the emergency room.

I am actually an example. We have insurance .. more than one policy. Yet, I sit here with glasses that are broken (and with a sever stigmatism, that's a big deal), really needing bifocals. It has been over a year since I was to the dentist -- before that it was 2 years. I have degnerated roots, so that is serious, but we just don't have the money. Yes, though I don't want to get into too many personal details, we really should have enough money, but don't. That said, the basic problem is that we have been living like those around us... well, not quite.

[thegreekdog]

Right now, all these medical decisions are being made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers.. people who often know nothing or little of medicie realities.

Do you think the president's plan will change this fact? There is a lot of rhetoric from both the president and the American Medical Association regarding putting the power back in the hands of doctors. However, when the government has to answer to the citizen, and the citizen cares a lot about how much taxes he or she pays, the government must control costs and disbursements related to any universal healthcare program. Therefore, decisions will continue to be made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers. And, frankly, if there is a truly universal healthcare system, I will either be forced to use the government system or be able to choose between the government system and private systems in the same fashion as I do today, while paying higher taxes.

The number one cause of high cost is the heavy dependence on emergency rooms. BECAUSE there is no universal health system, indigent people, people with inadequete insurance (note those with NO insurance are only a small part.. the bigger chunk are those with insurance that covers little), have to rely on the emergency room.

Do you think the president's plan will change this fact? According to George Will (and others on various conservative and liberal radio stations), the president's plan will not substantially change the availability of preventative medical care for most people who need it, while, at the same time, costing a large amount of money.

[Dancing Mustard]

if the government can promise medical treatment to the elderly to get elected, they will do so, regardless of the future fiscal consequences.

See, this is the thing that I just fail to understand when I hear it.

Why is it that you think providing care for the elderly is a bad thing? How can you conflate 'Making sure a large segment of society doesn't suffer unecessarily' with 'sharp electioneering practices'? What kind of worldview doesn't believe that ensuring elder members of society are allowed to spend their final years in relatively good health and to die with dignity is a good thing? How can you be happy in the knowledge that your country's current healthcare system can only function by allowing the majority of elderly citizens to quietly rot (or else stump up incredibly large wads of cash to fund their treatment)?

The entire private healthcare model survives (literally, can't continue in current form without doing it) by screwing over old-people as much as it physically can. No private model (that isn't regulated so heavily as to make it essentially state-run) can ever realistically provide for the healthcare requirements of old people. The finances of the thing be damned (after all, America seem to be able to find billions a year to fund the most advanced army known to man), how can you be happy to live in a country that so ruthlessly allows such a large segment of its population to fester and die?

I'm not even exaggerating here; and the worst thing is that old people are just one of the many sectors of society who are guaranteed to be denied basic healthcare under your current system. I just don't understand how, when you live in the richest nation on earth, you can turn the question of basic healthcare into a vulgar squabble about dollars.

Between you, you have the money to do this. By doing it, you aren't going to restrict your choice to go to a private provider. Over recent years the USA has spent literally billions on detonating explosives in the Middle East, bulking up the size of its armed forces, and detaining tiny numbers of alleged terrorists in holding cells across the world, all at a 100% financial loss and saving (at best) a mere handful of American lives... yet you balk at the prospect of spending a far smaller yearly sum on providing basic healthcare for all citizens that need it and potentially saving hundreds of thousands.

I just don't understand that mentality.

[thegreekdog]

DM, I'm not entirely sure if the "you" in that rant was directed at me specifically, or the US populace generally. If it was directed at me specifically, I take umbrage with your determination that I do not want to pay for the care of the elderly (or anyone else for that matter) because I want to save my tax dollars. I have no problem at all offering universal healthcare to the elderly (or anyone else that needs it for that matter).

What I do have a problem with is the automatic assumption that because private industry has failed in this regard, that the federal government will necessarily succeed. There are far too many instances of the US federal government failing to provide the necessary benefits, both from a non-healthcare prespective and a healthcare prespective (for example, Medicare) for me to automatically assume that a federally provided universal health insurance system will succeed. Many people who support such a system, point to the presumed success of every other nation with universal-type health coverage. However, the US government operates differently (for many of the reasons you stated, for example, the presumed need to build bombs or the presumed need to fund big business). Further, I have yet to see a plan proposed by the current administration that will provide actual universal healthcare. What I have seen are widespread cuts in Medicare (which ostensibly assists the elderly) and a plan that insures a small portion of the population that should be clamoring for universal healthcare.

[Dancing Mustard]

DM, I'm not entirely sure if the "you" in that rant was directed at me specifically, or the US populace generally.

Gah! Stupid internets swallowed my long and eloquent response. Bollocks to it all.


Anyway, previous post directed at America generally (mainly the rabid rightwing bits of it). You on the other hand seem like a perfectly reasonable guy.

[Snorri1234]

Further, I have yet to see a plan proposed by the current administration that will provide actual universal healthcare.

You know why you haven't seen such a plan proposed?

It's because the insurance companies and farmaceutical companies are making vast amounts of money from the private system. And if there comes universal healthcare they will not make those huge amounts of money. So they bribe--i mean "fund the campaign of"--several congressmen to effectively make sure the system remains.

[thegreekdog]

Further, I have yet to see a plan proposed by the current administration that will provide actual universal healthcare.

You know why you haven't seen such a plan proposed?

It's because the insurance companies and farmaceutical companies are making vast amounts of money from the private system. And if there comes universal healthcare they will not make those huge amounts of money. So they bribe--i mean "fund the campaign of"--several congressmen to effectively make sure the system remains.

I would change "several" to "all" and include the phrase "and the president" after congressmen. I would also change the word "congressmen" to "congresspeople" - you know, to avoid charges of sexism.

[thelastpatriot]

Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?
2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Our health care was fine until the government started fucking with it in the 60's and 70's. Now we are stuck with what we got with the only hope to returning to where we were before Medicare by means of a Revolution. That is where you are correct, sir. A Revolution is happening, people are slowly waking up, but it will happen, and this is one of the many issues we will be revolting against. Government intervention is not the answer, despite generations of brainwashing! Less government and more freedom is the answer to prosperity, peace, and friendly trade relations.

well said

[Snorri1234]

Further, I have yet to see a plan proposed by the current administration that will provide actual universal healthcare.

You know why you haven't seen such a plan proposed?

It's because the insurance companies and farmaceutical companies are making vast amounts of money from the private system. And if there comes universal healthcare they will not make those huge amounts of money. So they bribe--i mean "fund the campaign of"--several congressmen to effectively make sure the system remains.

I would change "several" to "all" and include the phrase "and the president" after congressmen. I would also change the word "congressmen" to "congresspeople" - you know, to avoid charges of sexism.

Well true but there are some who are more heavily paid than others.

[PLAYER57832]

Right now, all these medical decisions are being made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers.. people who often know nothing or little of medicie realities.

Do you think the president's plan will change this fact? There is a lot of rhetoric from both the president and the American Medical Association regarding putting the power back in the hands of doctors. However, when the government has to answer to the citizen, and the citizen cares a lot about how much taxes he or she pays, the government must control costs and disbursements related to any universal healthcare program. Therefore, decisions will continue to be made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers. And, frankly, if there is a truly universal healthcare system, I will either be forced to use the government system or be able to choose between the government system and private systems in the same fashion as I do today, while paying higher taxes.

The number one cause of high cost is the heavy dependence on emergency rooms. BECAUSE there is no universal health system, indigent people, people with inadequete insurance (note those with NO insurance are only a small part.. the bigger chunk are those with insurance that covers little), have to rely on the emergency room.

Do you think the president's plan will change this fact? According to George Will (and others on various conservative and liberal radio stations), the president's plan will not substantially change the availability of preventative medical care for most people who need it, while, at the same time, costing a large amount of money.

I think the president's plan is garbage, and for the reasons you and snorri cited above.

BUT, I also think we have the power to change that. Campaign contributions matter, but so do 1,000,000 phone calls from constituants.

[thegreekdog]

It's funny, I sent emails to both presidential candidates during the election outlining what I think they should do regarding taxes. I received no replies other than to be put on then-presidential candidate Obama's listserve. I didn't expect a reply, but you never know. I guess my point is, they aren't listening to constituents either (maybe my state senator would, but who knows).

[PLAYER57832]

It's funny, I sent emails to both presidential candidates during the election outlining what I think they should do regarding taxes. I received no replies other than to be put on then-presidential candidate Obama's listserve. I didn't expect a reply, but you never know. I guess my point is, they aren't listening to constituents either (maybe my state senator would, but who knows).

You send an email, and actually did get a response (being put on a list), and say "nobody listens?"

I sure hope you aren't using that sort of evidence in court!

First, email is traditionally the worst way to communicate, because its so easy for someone to set up a thousand phony addresses and emails. That may be changing a bit with the times, but not much.

Second, do you really expect a personal response from the president? He probably never saw your email. Senators, presidents have people on staff who read and count emails. Sometimes its a simple "for/against" count. Sometimes particular comments may be brought to the attention of the boss.

However, that you were added to a list seems to show that somewhere, someone DID really listen to you.

[thegreekdog]

Dudette, they put me on a listserve. They didn't read my email. I guarantee you no person in President Obama's campaign read my email. They took my email address and put it on a listserve from which they sent me thousands of campaign messages that had nothing to do with my email.

I didn't expect them to read my email (as I said in the post you replied to and quoted... although, I did expect you to read my post... perhaps too high an expectation).

[PLAYER57832]

Dudette, they put me on a listserve. They didn't read my email. I guarantee you no person in President Obama's campaign read my email. They took my email address and put it on a listserve from which they sent me thousands of campaign messages that had nothing to do with my email.

I didn't expect them to read my email (as I said in the post you replied to and quoted... although, I did expect you to read my post... perhaps too high an expectation).

I read it. But, I did not know what listserve was.

[thegreekdog]

Dudette, they put me on a listserve. They didn't read my email. I guarantee you no person in President Obama's campaign read my email. They took my email address and put it on a listserve from which they sent me thousands of campaign messages that had nothing to do with my email.

I didn't expect them to read my email (as I said in the post you replied to and quoted... although, I did expect you to read my post... perhaps too high an expectation).

I read it. But, I did not know what listserve was.

Hmm... maybe I used the term "listserve" incorrectly. They put me on their mailing list on the Internet. In other words, everyone that emailed the presidential campaign... all of their emails were put on a list and then we all received "spam" emails with things like "Come to Philadelphia to support Candidate Obama!" or "Joe Biden says stay in school." Stuff like that.

[PLAYER57832]

Dudette, they put me on a listserve. They didn't read my email. I guarantee you no person in President Obama's campaign read my email. They took my email address and put it on a listserve from which they sent me thousands of campaign messages that had nothing to do with my email.

I didn't expect them to read my email (as I said in the post you replied to and quoted... although, I did expect you to read my post... perhaps too high an expectation).

I read it. But, I did not know what listserve was.

Hmm... maybe I used the term "listserve" incorrectly. They put me on their mailing list on the Internet. In other words, everyone that emailed the presidential campaign... all of their emails were put on a list and then we all received "spam" emails with things like "Come to Philadelphia to support Candidate Obama!" or "Joe Biden says stay in school." Stuff like that.

Well, I know they used to do that with snail mail, but they pretty much did read the letters first. So, I guess email is a new world.

[PopeBenXVI]

I respectfully disagree. I think the reason that Medicare is broken is because the US government did not realize what it was getting itself into when it created the program (or else did not care what it was getting itself into). I think the vast majority of things the government does is related to getting re-elected. For example, if the government can promise medical treatment to the elderly to get elected, they will do so, regardless of the future fiscal consequences. To further compound the issue (and to throw social security in the mix), when the government sees a pot of money sitting there, they will not hesitate to use it for other things for which the money was not intended to be used.

You are correct and wrong. I don't think ANYBODY could predict what would happen in medical care when this all came about.

As for the rest -- people in government certainly have their vested interests, but so do companies. Elected officials have to, ultimately, answer to we taxpayers if they wish to be re-elected. Companies only marginally have to respond to stockholders. They have to respond to consumers, to a point. HOWEVER, we, the users of insurance and medicine are not the consumers in this system. Doctor's are really not either. That is the problem.

Right now, all these medical decisions are being made by people sitting at desks crunching numbers.. people who often know nothing or little of medicie realities.

The number one cause of high cost is the heavy dependence on emergency rooms. BECAUSE there is no universal health system, indigent people, people with inadequete insurance (note those with NO insurance are only a small part.. the bigger chunk are those with insurance that covers little), have to rely on the emergency room.

I am actually an example. We have insurance .. more than one policy. Yet, I sit here with glasses that are broken (and with a sever stigmatism, that's a big deal), really needing bifocals. It has been over a year since I was to the dentist -- before that it was 2 years. I have degnerated roots, so that is serious, but we just don't have the money. Yes, though I don't want to get into too many personal details, we really should have enough money, but don't. That said, the basic problem is that we have been living like those around us... well, not quite.

So you think I should get taxed more to pay for your broken glasses.......got it. You would have more money if you were not taxed so much....and so would everyone else.

[PLAYER57832]

So you think I should get taxed more to pay for your broken glasses.......got it. You would have more money if you were not taxed so much....and so would everyone else.

No, you don't "got it". We pay more and get FAR less than any other industrialized nation.

AND they are happier.

If you really think our system leads to better treatment, then you have never dealt with Blue Cross's lower tiers or many other HMOs. That is reality. Not your dreams of what ought to be.

[PopeBenXVI]

So you think I should get taxed more to pay for your broken glasses.......got it. You would have more money if you were not taxed so much....and so would everyone else.

No, you don't "got it". We pay more and get FAR less than any other industrialized nation.

AND they are happier.

If you really think our system leads to better treatment, then you have never dealt with Blue Cross's lower tiers or many other HMOs. That is reality. Not your dreams of what ought to be.

Yes we do have better treatment thats why everyone comes to the U.S. for it. Whether or not some people take advantage of it for the common cold - you can often get in right away for treatment when Socialized counties you often wait days or weeks and care is rationed even in extreme cases of need which does not make them "happier". Wanting Obama to provide you with new glasses does not mean you tax everyone else to do it. I could use a new knee but I would never expect government to provide it on the backs of other workers. You still have not shown that the government has a track record of being able to pull this off. They are already in the healthcare business and it's not going well.

[lgoasklucyl]

I love when individuals run around preaching religion, yet bitch left and right about taking a few extra dollars out of their paycheck to help others.

Do you really think 'insert 'x' religious martyr/zealot/idol here' would be adamantly opposed to a system that is designed to help individuals who cannot help themselves?

Don't beat around the bush with 'they can help themselves' or 'wah wah but I work hard for that money', because rest assured any 'devout' religious individual wouldn't sit there and complain about improving the lives of others.

Fucking organized religion and the hypocrisy it has become.

I didn't become an atheist because of a lack of belief in a higher power, I became an atheist because of people like YOU, PopeBen, who are billboards for the fact that religion is purely a self-righteous mask of bullshit that the current era of individuals who partake in its system and 'defend' it merely pick and choose to practice, follow, and believe in what they will with regards to their particular ideology and throw out the rest if it inconveniences them.