universal healthcare

[PLAYER57832]

We have government control because the government wants control. Do you think the government cares any more than Corporation X whether Corporation X pollutes the water? Your idealism regarding the government is good, I like it, but it's a little unrealistic.

Further, I read all of your NPR stories that you posted, I answered them, and you did not respond. You did not respond because the NPR stories had little do to with private companies and a lot to do with criticizing the Bush administration for spending loads of money on contractors, which fits my definition of government waste.

You ask why I think the government wouldn't do a good job. I ask you, why would the government do a good job? Your answer is that it can't get any worse. I think it can. I've cited examples in other threads of how bad the government is at running stuff (for the most part). I think we'll be able to shortly add "healthcare" to the list.

WE are the government.

As for the NPR stories, I thought I did answer them, but there have been a lot of posts lately, so I could easily have missed some.

As for the last, no my answer is not that it "cannot get worse". My answer is that it has been getting worse and worse, EXCEPT where they government is involved and that in countries that really do have a various forms of either direct government pay or sponsored insurance,etc ALL ARE, right now, today cheaper. I don't have to dream about it, I just have to look and see.

As for the government contractors, that IS what moving government jobs into the private sector means. That IS how it is employed. Cut the government, make it more efficient? OF COURSE! But you were comparing it to private companies. Contractors IS the comparison. The things that are run by the government are run by the government because they are either too important, too wide-reaching (military, transportation, etc.), too inherently unprofitable (tax collection and processing), OR giving a profit would wind up costing people far too much. Health care fits into all of those categories.

[GabonX]

WE are the government.

There is a lot to talk about in that simple little statement.

It would be nice if WE (the government?) could take it at face value but I don't think that such a thing would be wise.

In essence this is fascist style thinking, not concentration camps and racial superiority, but the idea that a group of people has the right to impose their will on another group for the supposed benefit of the everyone, ie the state.

The United States of America was a unique experiment. The idea of a nation based around the concepts of personal liberty AND democracy was a revolutionary concept which has evolved into a great society which has been emulated throughout the world.

We have seen what the end results totalitarianism and socialism have been where they have been instituted. Perhaps there could one day be nations which could better utilize these systems, but the idea that the greatest free nation of the world would give up it's liberties, many of which are unique liberties, in order to mimic systems which have failed is depressing.

There are a number of nations where government control functions relatively well. I for one would like to see our nation continue to hold to the values which have allowed it to grow into what it is today.

[PopeBenXVI]

WE are the government.

There is a lot to talk about in that simple little statement.

It would be nice if WE (the government?) could take it at face value but I don't think that such a thing would be wise.

In essence this is fascist style thinking, not concentration camps and racial superiority, but the idea that a group of people has the right to impose their will on another group for the supposed benefit of the everyone, ie the state.

The United States of America was a unique experiment. The idea of a nation based around the concepts of personal liberty AND democracy was a revolutionary concept which has evolved into a great society which has been emulated throughout the world.

We have seen what the end results totalitarianism and socialism have been where they have been instituted. Perhaps there could one day be nations which could better utilize these systems, but the idea that the greatest free nation of the world would give up it's liberties, many of which are unique liberties, in order to mimic systems which have failed is depressing.

There are a number of nations where government control functions relatively well. I for one would like to see our nation continue to hold to the values which have allowed it to grow into what it is today.

You will have to record that on a sound bite because Player can't read.

[PLAYER57832]

WE are the government.

There is a lot to talk about in that simple little statement.

It would be nice if WE (the government?) could take it at face value but I don't think that such a thing would be wise.

In essence this is fascist style thinking, not concentration camps and racial superiority, but the idea that a group of people has the right to impose their will on another group for the supposed benefit of the everyone, ie the state.

The United States of America was a unique experiment. The idea of a nation based around the concepts of personal liberty AND democracy was a revolutionary concept which has evolved into a great society which has been emulated throughout the world.

We have seen what the end results totalitarianism and socialism have been where they have been instituted. Perhaps there could one day be nations which could better utilize these systems, but the idea that the greatest free nation of the world would give up it's liberties, many of which are unique liberties, in order to mimic systems which have failed is depressing.

There are a number of nations where government control functions relatively well. I for one would like to see our nation continue to hold to the values which have allowed it to grow into what it is today.

Wait, I saw WE are the government and you call that facism?

Democracy has been called "mob rule", but in reality, what makes most western democracies work are the many individuals each working for what they want and basically keeping each other in check.

When you give over our power to corporations, that is simply lost. The "only" thing corporations want (as opposed to those individuals who run them) is profit and perhaps continuation. Right now, though many companies are run under because it is more profitable to do so.

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

[PopeBenXVI]

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Good Point, It's way better for 100% of people who work their entire life to be robbed 40-50% of your income every year by the government. That does sound more like freedom. Wait.....

[PLAYER57832]

As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Into a report filed by Professor Sikhora based on WHO estimates, which James bartholomew later cited in an article and his book, The Welfare State We're In.

And in the US, thousands are "killed" every year from medical errors, mostly by patients getting the wrong medications. Find exact data is hard, though because we don't have a general data base. This makes correcting those problems much harder.

One benefit of a more univeral system is better, universal data tracking, so we can better know how these problems are occuring, instead of them being masked when patients are shuffled from one system to another as they are here and now.

[PLAYER57832]

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Good Point, It's way better for 100% of people who work their entire life to be robbed 40-50% of your income every year by the government. That does sound more like freedom. Wait.....

First it was 23%, which several people who live in countries with fully socialized medicine said was quite high. Now its 50%?

Oh, and for a large number of Americans... its already much more than that!

[Night Strike]

If the Canadian system is so great and should be emulated here in the States, why are Canadians having to buy private health care to get standard care while avoiding long lines??

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.

"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.

Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... latestnews

[captain.crazy]

WE are the government.

There is a lot to talk about in that simple little statement.

It would be nice if WE (the government?) could take it at face value but I don't think that such a thing would be wise.

In essence this is fascist style thinking, not concentration camps and racial superiority, but the idea that a group of people has the right to impose their will on another group for the supposed benefit of the everyone, ie the state.

The United States of America was a unique experiment. The idea of a nation based around the concepts of personal liberty AND democracy was a revolutionary concept which has evolved into a great society which has been emulated throughout the world.

We have seen what the end results totalitarianism and socialism have been where they have been instituted. Perhaps there could one day be nations which could better utilize these systems, but the idea that the greatest free nation of the world would give up it's liberties, many of which are unique liberties, in order to mimic systems which have failed is depressing.

There are a number of nations where government control functions relatively well. I for one would like to see our nation continue to hold to the values which have allowed it to grow into what it is today.

Wait, I saw WE are the government and you call that facism?

Democracy has been called "mob rule", but in reality, what makes most western democracies work are the many individuals each working for what they want and basically keeping each other in check.

When you give over our power to corporations, that is simply lost. The "only" thing corporations want (as opposed to those individuals who run them) is profit and perhaps continuation. Right now, though many companies are run under because it is more profitable to do so.

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Where is the "vomiting like a drunken sailor" smiley? WE are not the government... a bunch of carreer fancy nancy's are the government, and they ALL have become so far removed from what it means to actually live and work in America that they are physically unable to represent us, and the multinational corporations that fund their carreers.

Your statements on democracy and amd mob rule are total bunk.

As for the multinational corporations... they want to reduce the global population. By a lot. This is why you have an abortion mentality, a birth control mentality all across the planet. This is why you are seeing AIDS being spread across the African Continent by UN workers... this is why you see that drugs and crime are propogated by our government... and why you do not see tighter borders...

When you take healthcare from the private sector... you are taling the profitability from the bright minds of the world that want to get into that field and turning it into a line of work rather like janatorial services... anyone who will do it can. there will not be a competative market for the brightese and the best... but a market like that of public school teachers... not a very shining industry of innovators there...

Lastly... the words effective and government are not allowed in the same sentence... unless you put the word smaller in between them.

[Dancing Mustard]

multinational corporations... they want to reduce the global population. By a lot.

... so that then there will be lots less people to buy their products. Sure, why not? It makes perfect sense.

When you take healthcare from the private sector... you are taling the profitability from the bright minds of the world that want to get into that field

No. We are actually taking it from the bright minds of the world who want to use healthcare provision as a way to make big bucks for themselves, but who see the actual business of 'making people better' as an unfortunate ancillary sideshow to their regular cost-slashing and care-denying process of making themselves rich.

Turn it over to the Govt, and suddenly the profession will not be measured by how many dollars it makes, but instead by how many people it actually cures.

But of course... the idea that hospitals ought to be focused on making people well is something that you neo-cons just don't seem to like the sound of. You'd rather a board of directors got paid, than that the poorest 30% of society got treated.innovators there...

Lastly... the words effective and government are not allowed in the same sentence...

Because it's only by pretending that the concept is unworkable that your ridiculous classical economics can manage not to look ridiculous.

[PLAYER57832]

If the Canadian system is so great and should be emulated here in the States, why are Canadians having to buy private health care to get standard care while avoiding long lines??

The idea of a public system is not to completely replace the private ones, it is to provide a basic level tier for everyone. This will be equal to or better than a large majority of people right now. Those wanting better coverage can always pay more for it.

BUT, those with the better coverage are already paying more, though it may be picked up by their employer.

Just as an example, to continue coverage from one of the local employers under COBRA (the plan that allows people to pay in full and keep coverage), it would cost a couple over $1200.

No one is talking about charging average taxpayers an extra $1200 a month for health care!

[thegreekdog]

So, really there are about 100 arguments going on here on different things. Here, I'll make a list:

(1) Government-provided healthcare for those that can't afford it.
(2) #1 plus government-provided healthcare for everyone else as a choice along with private health insurance.
(3) Government-provided healthcare for everyone, except those that can afford private insurance and/or to pay doctors out of their own pockets.
(4) Government-provided/mandated healthcare for everyone. No private insurance. No paying doctors or hospitals on the side.

Am I missing anything.

I support #1. I'm not sure about #2. I don't support #s 3 or 4.

[PLAYER57832]

So, really there are about 100 arguments going on here on different things. Here, I'll make a list:

(1) Government-provided healthcare for those that can't afford it.
(2) #1 plus government-provided healthcare for everyone else as a choice along with private health insurance.
(3) Government-provided healthcare for everyone, except those that can afford private insurance and/or to pay doctors out of their own pockets.
(4) Government-provided/mandated healthcare for everyone. No private insurance. No paying doctors or hospitals on the side.

Am I missing anything.

I support #1. I'm not sure about #2. I don't support #s 3 or 4.

#1 doesn't work, because the insurance companies nicely ensure that anyone with truly difficult medical issues cannot afford it. That's how they make money and a big reason why tax payers have such a huge bill right now. (note.. this is supposedly what PA has right now)

#2 or #3 is the best option for everyone, IF it allows for preventative and maintenance care. Also, most people agree that kids should be covered almot 100%. (some limits, sadly must apply even there, but understand those limits exist right now and usually in even greater measure)

The problem with #2 is that too often (right now), there are no real basic bottom standards. This is why my family wound up paying over $4000 a couple of years ago, even though our income was below the CHIP limits. My husband's employer offered insurance, it just had exhorbitant copays and severe limits in coverage. I would agree with #2 as long as the private insurers are required to actually offer real basic coverage. However, that pretty much means #3, I believe.

[thegreekdog]

So, maybe couple #1 with some standards regarding what health insurance must cover once one has health insurance.

It seems the president's plan is more like #1 than any of the others.

[Snorri1234]

If the Canadian system is so great and should be emulated here in the States, why are Canadians having to buy private health care to get standard care while avoiding long lines??

Ooh I know the answer to this one!

Basically, the vast majority of people don't.

[PLAYER57832]

So, maybe couple #1 with some standards regarding what health insurance must cover once one has health insurance.

It seems the president's plan is more like #1 than any of the others.

As always, "the devil is in the details".

Bottom line.. I want a basic system that is provides care for everyone at a basic level. It needs to be universal or again, the insurer will take the healthy and leave the unhealthy and poor for the government system, thus taking much of the ability to be cost-effective out of the government system.

Anyone who wants additional coverage should be able to do so at their own expense. I predict that sort of coverage will have a range of options and costs similar to what is offered now, except that everyone's basic needs will be met. There will be no "bottom" tier, just the upper ends for private pay.

[PopeBenXVI]

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Good Point, It's way better for 100% of people who work their entire life to be robbed 40-50% of your income every year by the government. That does sound more like freedom. Wait.....

First it was 23%, which several people who live in countries with fully socialized medicine said was quite high. Now its 50%?

Oh, and for a large number of Americans... its already much more than that!

If you paid attention you would realize we were talking about a tax for healthcare earlier and now I am talking about the total % of income taken by the government by one tax or another. It's ok to misrepresent though. Didn't you say more people die of malpractice every year than in all 3 world wars combined? Well, it was something like that. I can't keep track of all your incorrect comments.

[PopeBenXVI]

One benefit of a more univeral system is better, universal data tracking, so we can better know how these problems are occuring, instead of them being masked when patients are shuffled from one system to another as they are here and now.

Yes, It will allow the government to track you better. Captaincrazy will especially like that benefit!

[PLAYER57832]

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Good Point, It's way better for 100% of people who work their entire life to be robbed 40-50% of your income every year by the government. That does sound more like freedom. Wait.....

First it was 23%, which several people who live in countries with fully socialized medicine said was quite high. Now its 50%?

Oh, and for a large number of Americans... its already much more than that!

If you paid attention you would realize we were talking about a tax for healthcare earlier and now I am talking about the total % of income taken by the government by one tax or another. It's ok to misrepresent though. Didn't you say more people die of malpractice every year than in all 3 world wars combined? Well, it was something like that. I can't keep track of all your incorrect comments.

Your figures are still way off, based on comparisons to other countries.

And no, I did not say more people die of malpractice. I said more people die from drunk driving than in all 3 world wars, but if you bothered to read, you would not say half of what you say.

[PopeBenXVI]

When we take things like healthcare from private industry, we are not creating totalitarianism. We are giving average people what we need to live, so we CAN work for more effective government. Right now, you can work your entire life and have it literally wiped out by one, big illness. That's not freedom.

Good Point, It's way better for 100% of people who work their entire life to be robbed 40-50% of your income every year by the government. That does sound more like freedom. Wait.....

First it was 23%, which several people who live in countries with fully socialized medicine said was quite high. Now its 50%?

Oh, and for a large number of Americans... its already much more than that!

If you paid attention you would realize we were talking about a tax for healthcare earlier and now I am talking about the total % of income taken by the government by one tax or another. It's ok to misrepresent though. Didn't you say more people die of malpractice every year than in all 3 world wars combined? Well, it was something like that. I can't keep track of all your incorrect comments.

Your figures are still way off, based on comparisons to other countries.

And no, I did not say more people die of malpractice. I said more people die from drunk driving than in all 3 world wars, but if you bothered to read, you would not say half of what you say.

I know what you said. It's called sarcasm.

[Night Strike]

Universal Heath Insurance hasn't worked in Massachusetts, so why would it work nationally?

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Massachusetts voters say their state’s health care reform effort has been a success. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds that 37% say the reform effort has been a failure, while another 37% are not sure.

Only 10% of Bay State voters say the quality of health care has gotten better as a result of the reform plan while 29% say it has gotten worse. Most (53%) say the quality of care has not changed.

As for cost, 21% say the reform has made health care more affordable in Massachusetts. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say health care is now less affordable while 44% see no change.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

The Massachusetts Health Care Reform was enacted in 2006 by Republican Governor Mitt Romney and a Democratic state legislature. Some consider it a bipartisan model for national health care reform.

By a 37% to 17% margin, Massachusetts liberals consider the program a success. By a 55% to 18% margin, conservatives in the state say it’s been a failure.

From a partisan perspective, Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 49% not sure if the reform effort has been a success or a failure. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans say it’s been a failure. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 27% consider the reform plan a success while 41% say it’s been a failure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _a_success

[PopeBenXVI]

Universal Heath Insurance hasn't worked in Massachusetts, so why would it work nationally?

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Massachusetts voters say their state’s health care reform effort has been a success. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds that 37% say the reform effort has been a failure, while another 37% are not sure.

Only 10% of Bay State voters say the quality of health care has gotten better as a result of the reform plan while 29% say it has gotten worse. Most (53%) say the quality of care has not changed.

As for cost, 21% say the reform has made health care more affordable in Massachusetts. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say health care is now less affordable while 44% see no change.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

The Massachusetts Health Care Reform was enacted in 2006 by Republican Governor Mitt Romney and a Democratic state legislature. Some consider it a bipartisan model for national health care reform.

By a 37% to 17% margin, Massachusetts liberals consider the program a success. By a 55% to 18% margin, conservatives in the state say it’s been a failure.

From a partisan perspective, Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 49% not sure if the reform effort has been a success or a failure. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans say it’s been a failure. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 27% consider the reform plan a success while 41% say it’s been a failure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _a_success

good point - Hawaii trid it too and it went broke and they stopped it.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem was those were voluntary. ANY voluntary system is going to fail because the insurers will happily ensure all those who they know won't need much care. Then the rest are left to the taxpayers.

Actually, that's about what we have now, except we only cover emergency care, which means many illnesses are left to get TO an emergency. Then it becomes truly expensive.

That is what you both keep missing. Right now, taxpayers pay a hefty portion of the medical bills, but we ONLY pay for the most expensive stuff. The insurance companies happily make a profit off the rest.

[PopeBenXVI]

The problem was those were voluntary. ANY voluntary system is going to fail because the insurers will happily ensure all those who they know won't need much care. Then the rest are left to the taxpayers.

Actually, that's about what we have now, except we only cover emergency care, which means many illnesses are left to get TO an emergency. Then it becomes truly expensive.

That is what you both keep missing. Right now, taxpayers pay a hefty portion of the medical bills, but we ONLY pay for the most expensive stuff. The insurance companies happily make a profit off the rest.

The problem is they were run by the government

[Dancing Mustard]

The problem is they were run by the government

The problem is that you don't actually have any evidence for anything that you ever say. You just rely on emptily shrieking "Teh guvhmint is tayke away our FREEdom!!!1" and hoping that everybody takes your word for it.