On Healthcare in the U.S.

[The One and Only...]

This is a repost from something I said on the "Question for Vinth" thread. I don't think it will get much attention over there, so I want to see other peoples opinions on the matter. So, here it goes:

My opinion is that this should be provided for by taxes. Yep, borrow from socialism on this one, because the system works.

First of all, it's the most fair. There are those who can't afford health insurance, whose jobs do not provide it, and need medical attention. It is not their fault that they had a heart attack and that they don't have a decent job because of their 80 IQ.

Second, it'd be cheaper overall. Whether you pay for insurance indirectly through your job or directly through you, chances are you will save more money from the taxes increase. I say "chances are" and "overall" because this is not always the case - an example would be those who don't have health insurance anyway, but never have anything seriously wrong with them.

Why would it be cheaper overall? Think about it. Insurance companies are businesses. That is, they're goal is to make large amounts of profit. The government has no reason to raise taxes higher than the amount to cover healthcare and pay it's workers; they need no profit. In fact, with the reputation the U.S. has, they wouldn't raise it enough and we'd be in debt.

The only downside is that many workers will be fired as healthcare insurance goes down the tubes and doctors no longer work independantly. But then, the government will surely need to hire those doctors again, and I'm sure that there are plenty of openings that those insurance workers could fill in the new system...

Many times, I wonder why our government does not truly progress. Rather than changing things that are generally beneficial to all, they seem to flip-flop on issues teeming with morals and having vast numbers of people on both sides so that no one will end up happy (abortion anyone?). I'm not sure whether it sickens me, saddens me, angers me, or all at the same time.

[Burned In Effigy]

Get a civil service job.

[The One and Only...]

Heh... just wait until I post my ideal government and ask everyone to rate it. Maybe one day I'll even get a chance to publish it. It would likely work best with countries that have smaller populations, however...

[Carnivore]

I do agree that healthcare should be guaranteed, but I think those who can afford their own insurance should have a choice. They may opt for a private plan that provides better services the same way some kids goes to private schools when public education is free.

[Vibecrewangel]

:love Carni :love

[El Blanco]

What in the world makes you think the government would get the job done cheaper? Have you ever seen government contracts vs private contracts? Especially construction jobs. What fantasy world do you live?

And how is making my tax dollars pay for your smoking induced heart disease fair?

[Carnivore]

What do you propose we do about people who can't afford insurance then? Leave them on the street to die? That would probably reduce my workload by about 33%.

[The One and Only...]

I do agree that healthcare should be guaranteed, but I think those who can afford their own insurance should have a choice. They may opt for a private plan that provides better services the same way some kids goes to private schools when public education is free.

There are two meaning I can attach to your statement that I see.

1) Membership into something that includes more than what the government pays for. For example, if the government did not pay for abortions unless the mother was in danger, then this plan would in the case you needed one.

2) Private medical institutions that you must pay for.

My replies:

1) Sure, but you get you no discount on taxes. I would strongly suggest that these plans are only additional insurance, not a replacement of the government system.

2) Perhaps, but you still get no tax cuts. Wealthy individuals stop paying for medical assistance from the government = raise in taxes for the poor to middle classes to take up the slack. That very well may throw off the entire theory. Unlike many republicans, I do not support tax vouches for private school attenders for this very reason.

[Carnivore]

Opting for private insurance would not get you out of paying taxes that go towards government insurance the same way attending private school doesn't get you out of paying taxes that go towards public education.

I think private school vouchers are an idiotic concept too. Does nothing to improve the public schools for those who stay there.

[AChimp]

And how is making my tax dollars pay for your smoking induced heart disease fair?
I'm tired of all you nutty right-wingers getting your shit mixed up when it comes to equality and equity. >:

THE GOVERNMENT ALLOCATES STUFF BASED ON NEED.

Is that plain enough to you? Who says it has to be fair? You might be the needy one next year, and I bet you wouldn't be complaining then.

[El Blanco]

No, government doesn't give you a damn thing. It merely protects your right to have certain things.

[The One and Only...]

What in the world makes you think the government would get the job done cheaper? Have you ever seen government contracts vs private contracts? Especially construction jobs. What fantasy world do you live?

Just what I said. The government has no incentive to make a profit, only to break even. If it attempted to make a profit, that would be called corruption. It wouldn't actually be cheaper to provide the healthcare in and of itself - it would just cost the citizen less.

And how is making my tax dollars pay for your smoking induced heart disease fair?

That isn't fair, but what you have to understand is that somethings are unpreventable. NO system is perfect. I just think this one is slightly better on a purely practical stance. If I told you that you would still have to pay less for yourself, would you really care if some of your money went to that man?

Personally, I think that tobacco should be replaced with marijuana in terms of industry and legality. But I'm not even going to get in to that...

[The One and Only...]

Opting for private insurance would not get you out of paying taxes that go towards government insurance the same way attending private school doesn't get you out of paying taxes that go towards public education.

I think private school vouchers are an idiotic concept too. Does nothing to improve the public schools for those who stay there.

Sounds like it would work fine.

[theapportioner]

Apparently, Blanco does not believe that health care is a universal right. What is it then, a privilege that you get to see a doctor because you are a good, industrious American?

Interestingly, hospitals across the US have been hit hard because those who cannot afford health care and/or are ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid will still get treated at hospital ERs, and they will fill out paperwork with false information, so that they don't get billed. Huge money loser, and this results in the closing of services, overworked employees, and chronically understaffed services that remain open. And with hospitals with serious debt, such as Mount Sinai, low morale is an added problem. Would a more comprehensive federal health care net resolve this problem? Maybe.

[El Blanco]

Just what I said. The government has no incentive to make a profit, only to break even. If it attempted to make a profit, that would be called corruption. It wouldn't actually be cheaper to provide the healthcare in and of itself - it would just cost the citizen less.

There is nothing in the world to make you believe that. Look at everything the government does. Its always the most expensive way. Amd where do they get the money? Thats it, the tax payer.

So, how is it cheaper for us?

A private company is driven to make a profit. The best way to make a consistent profit? Customer satisfaction. Provide quality service at a reasonable price.

Unfortunatly, because of the shitty lifestyles we live, a reasonable price gets out of reach.

Want healthcare to get cheaper? No smoking, fatty foods, stressful job. Excersice, eat right, and all that other crap none of us do.

[Carnivore]

Well that's a brilliant assessment. If people were healthier, healthcare would be cheaper! Amazing.

[Preechr]

If you are hungry and you want a potato, go get yourself a potato. If you want a potato, ten pounds of paperwork and you have about a week to kill, ask the government to get you a potato.

I’m not changing the subject entirely, but I’d like to offer a comparison. Currently, the government offers one stop shopping for all your educational needs, at the immense expense of the education of our youngest and most childlike Americans. Let’s draw a direct parallel between govt schools and govt Healthcare. The Department of Education costs us $60 Billion per year in NON-educational costs. That’s just administrative and managerial costs… no children get any smarter for that spending. Our least educated kids are found in the most densely populated areas where, not coincidentally, we spend the most per student to receive the least benefit.

There are plenty of bad explanations offered for bad educations, yet very few people are willing to say that maybe We The People stop giving a shit about something when we give the responsibility for it over to Uncle Sam. What makes you guys think Healthcare would be any different? Who is ultimately responsible for you? YOU. If you can’t hack it, then you have friends and family that know you and will most likely help. If you’re such an asshole that they refuse, or so unlucky or hideous as to have no friends or family, you at least live in a community that won’t just let you die. If you fall through those cracks somehow, the State will catch you. Washington DC is LAST in line.

By the time your problem gets to the national level, you are naught but a number and subject to all the ill-handling associated with the limited, distant and generally malignant perspective of the Federal Employee.

I’ll ask my as yet unanswered question again here:

For all your do-goody “think of the children” sentimentality, how many of you actually contribute to charities that offer assistance to these people whose shoddy lots in life you champion?

[The One and Only...]

There is nothing in the world to make you believe that. Look at everything the government does. Its always the most expensive way. Amd where do they get the money? Thats it, the tax payer.

While it is true that goverments are typically wasteful, I believe I can say that does not make up for the drive for profit in companies. Even if companies are more resourceful, I still think that the gap would be in favor of the government as far as fewer expences to the citizen. I make this judgement from facts I have seen, such as on this: http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_402.asp

Furthermore, since the government does it the most expensive way, healthcare would be improved. Another strong point is that economic planners from those dead insurance companies could be hired to make the process as efficent as possible.

So, how is it cheaper for us?

I do believe I just addressed that in the above statement.

A private company is driven to make a profit. The best way to make a consistent profit? Customer satisfaction. Provide quality service at a reasonable price.

Unfortunatly, because of the shitty lifestyles we live, a reasonable price gets out of reach.

I'm not really sure what your point was with that statement.

Want healthcare to get cheaper? No smoking, fatty foods, stressful job. Excersice, eat right, and all that other crap none of us do.

Words of wisdom indeed, but it will never happen. And even if it did, the government would either cut taxes or put the money into something else, like education.

[Carnivore]

Our least educated kids are found in the most densely populated areas where, not coincidentally, we spend the most per student to receive the least benefit.

Fairly obvious that the funds are being misallocated, isn't it?

We The People stop giving a shit about something when we give the responsibility for it over to Uncle Sam.

That's not true at all. There are certain things that should be guaranteed and it is the responsibility of the government to handle them. Among these, I believe, are education, healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter. If you want better than the bare minimum that the government is obligated to provide, you need to get it for yourself.

[The One and Only...]

Preechr: The government could handle it if they wish. Look at Canada for an example.

Drawing parallels between education and healthcare is shakey at best. The reason education has fallen behind is because we are putting the money spent there in the wrong places, namely that we are focusing too much on the dumb kid that can't learn anything.

Healthcare is a completely different topic. There is nothing to focus on. The doctors provide it the way it always has been, just with a different person paying them.

In addition, were education not provided by the government, it would be catastrophic. The rich would inevitably remain rich, and the poor would inevitably remain poor. I'm not saying it isn't that way now, but at least those in poverty have the chance to be something that requires a high amount of education.

Furthermore, I never even suggested that this need be federal taxes. Indeed, this could be state taxes or even city ones.

[UnDeath]

and the problem lies in the fact that many are content to settle for the bare minimum, yet are fully capable to achieve more on their own. This takes recources that the government could use on the true needy. The system probably look a lot more efficient on paper, and would work better if people chose to take responsibility for themselves.

edit- this post would make a little more sense if it was one up,. since it was a psudo response to Carni's post.

[Carnivore]

People who can afford drugs and alcohol aren't getting the bare minimum. Government assistance should be given in the form of vouchers that can only be used for food, clothing, etc. If people are content living in a 45' by 45' room with minimum furnishings, eating nothing but supermarket-brand crap for their entire lives, let them!

[The One and Only...]

and the problem lies in the fact that many are content to settle for the bare minimum, yet are fully capable to achieve more on their own. This takes recources that the government could use on the truely needy. The system probably looks a lot more efficient on paper, and would work better if people chose to take responsibility for themselves.

Okay, I've seen this argument too much. I think I'll address it again.

Regardless of people's potential, you must realize that most will never meet it. If the lazy bastards of the world support this, the more the merrier.

However, you must realize that we need those lazy bastards. If everyone actually realized their potential, we would have no one to fix the fast-food, no one to clean the toilets, no one to do the jobs that many of us despise. Love em' or hate em', they are necessary.

And once again, I must ask the question: If you would get your own healthcare for less regardless, would you really care whether or not those lazy bastards also benefitted?

You see, the idea is to make everyone happy. The only people whom this would hurt are the extremely rich - people like Bill Gates, to whom a 2% tax increase is millions of dollars. But even they could not complain too much, because after all, with all the money they have would it make a difference?

As for taking recources, no it doesn't. If this were to occur, obviously taxes would be increased to compensate. So it really only benefits them since they will have better healthcare.

[UnDeath]

well, In WA, they do. They have these things that act like a debit/credit card. One is for Food stamps, and the other is like money for bills/ clothes/basic necessities.
My main bitch about people doing this is that they are leeching off the system, and thus tying up rescources that could be put towards those who actually need it. I know that once I actually make enough annual income to not get a full refund from The Man, I wouldnt like the fact that Im help paying for some tweaker perfectly content on relying on handouts from Uncle sam.

[The One and Only...]

Ahhh... but that has little to do with my argument. Where as your example only effects a select few, mine effects everyone.

[Vibecrewangel]

UnDeath

I think the debit card thing is an interesting way to go. Hopefully it will work. When it comes to social services CA has quite possibly the worst system. Actually, I can't blame the system......I can only blame those who abuse it. It wasn't always that way tho. If it weren't for medical I probably would have died as a child. If my nana hadn't recieved the pittance she did to help raise the 3 of us we probably wouldn't have had a roof over our heads. She never took food stamps though. And she would only take the money and medical offered to her as a foster parent. She refused food stamps and anything else welfare related even though she could have used it. Instead she worked into her 70's to make sure we were comfortable. I never had designer clothes, but I also never went hungry.
My nana was and still is a proud woman. Because of her all 3 of us broke that ugly cycle. None of us are on welfare. Nor do any of us have kids. We may not be doing as financially well as we would like, but we have never taken anything that we didn't need.

I just wish more people had been able to have my nana to raise them.

[UnDeath]

my bad, went a bit off topic there.
Anyway, I have to disagree for the most part on the government healthcare for everyone. Mostly due to the fact that those who can afford it, can pay for private insurance. Let the government act like a safety net, as someone stated earlier. Also, there are state programs that those in need can turn to if need be, so its not really as bleak as people make it out to be if your poor. In fact, Im looking into this Washington State ran health insurance currently. Its not the best by far, but its all I really need.
that brings me to another point. If healthcare was solely government funded, what about things that arent necessarily necessary, but would make things more convienent? Laser eye sugery is one thing. No way in hell the Government would cover that, but my friend got it done a few months ago, and the healthcare package that his employer (Albertsons) offered covered it completely. Sure, his vision could have been easily corrected with glasses, but his provider was of better quality, because his company could afford it. Everyone's happy, nobody got screwed, so why change it? Free healthcare is out there, you just need to know where to look.

[Preechr]

You see, the idea is to make everyone happy. The only people whom this would hurt are the extremely rich - people like Bill Gates, to whom a 2% tax increase is millions of dollars. But even they could not complain too much, because after all, with all the money they have would it make a difference?


So it's Ok to take money from rich people as long as they have plenty left over? Is it also Ok to force people to work on road crews as long as they aren't busy with something else or sleeping? We would all benefit from cleaner roads and highways, wouldn't we?

Or how about this: Let's just let the government handle ALL our property and resources! Surely we can trust the government to do the right thing all the time! Let's go dig up Vladimir Lenin and elect him President in 04! Yeah Baby!

FACT: The more government gains control over Healthcare, the more expensive and less equitable it becomes. This is a painfully obvious trend.

Your idea that somehow Big Government will manage to handle all our problems WHEN GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSEQUENCES TO SUFFER FOR BAD DECISIONS is simply infantile and naive. You say profit like it's a bad thing, man!

Here's a for instance: You and your neighbor both get similar jobs at the same company. Your boss is a real hard ass and lets you know right on the first day that if you do not produce as expected, you will not get paid. Your neighbor's boss, however, shows up to work two hours late in a tye-dyed tee-shirt and flip-flops stinking of pot smoke and informs him that there is no way in the world he'll ever get fired no matter what he does because Mr. Hippy doesn't believe in being "The Man," dude...

You do the math.

[Vibecrewangel]

And this is why I make sure my employer covers my insurance. Nothing the government could give me will even come close. And I sure as hell can't afford it on my own.

It would be nice to see basic coverage for all. Vacinations, checkups, generic medicactions, emergency visits.......
But realistically, I know the current government would be unable to provide this in any reasonable way. And I don't see our government changing that much any time soon.

I swear we pay too much for beuracuracy and not nearly enough for the actually services.

[Zosimus]

Preechr, (in regard to your earlier post on this thread):

I agree with you, that very often people like to give up and hand the responsibility to someone else but, I also believe that given the right means (essentials in life/proper education) to work and think, people will generally ask for LESS and do more themselves, rather than to rely on a system that doesn't really do anything for them unless they are really really rich, OR on the absolute brink of poverty.

In the society we live in, people generally care alot about their children's future but, look closely at it right there...leave it to the capitalist and you will see someone, who would rather open another "Toys R' Useless" corporation than to look into a school teacher's salary!
"$60 billion Dollars".......I am sure it is EXACTLY as you stated: "ALL that non-educational money went to the administrations". As usual, NOTHING to the hardest working people in the very same institution, who are just barely above minimum wages!! Look at what the media is writing on how average and stupid our children are turning...The problem does not lie in the fact that the children have become stupid over time, or that the teachers have become rotten but, in the fact that there is no money given to them to GET educated (i.e. Smaller classrooms, more assistants, newer facilities, revision of old school policies, ETC.)

I’ll ask my as yet unanswered question again here:
For all your do-goody “think of the children” sentimentality, how many of you actually contribute to charities that offer assistance to these people whose shoddy lots in life you champion?

There are alot of us "do-goodies"-types all around you Preechr. Our main focus (every fucking day) is to help people who are off in a poor slump. Charities, while good, aren't the key. Better education tends to mend many of these kind of problems, as people learn to help themselves, rather than to rely on others or a "system" to carry them! Even the most hard-core socialist countries ammend to promoting self-help, and they are revising their old systems to enhance that behavior in their citizens.
I'm sure you have heard the old saying "if you want to help a starving man, don't give him the fish, teach him how to fish".

Typical sentimental lefty huh?..always thinking: "how can I do it?" rather than "how do I get it?"

[UnDeath]

UnDeath

I think the debit card thing is an interesting way to go. Hopefully it will work. When it comes to social services CA has quite possibly the worst system. Actually, I can't blame the system......I can only blame those who abuse it. It wasn't always that way tho. If it weren't for medical I probably would have died as a child. If my nana hadn't recieved the pittance she did to help raise the 3 of us we probably wouldn't have had a roof over our heads. She never took food stamps though. And she would only take the money and medical offered to her as a foster parent. She refused food stamps and anything else welfare related even though she could have used it. Instead she worked into her 70's to make sure we were comfortable. I never had designer clothes, but I also never went hungry.
My nana was and still is a proud woman. Because of her all 3 of us broke that ugly cycle. None of us are on welfare. Nor do any of us have kids. We may not be doing as financially well as we would like, but we have never taken anything that we didn't need.

I just wish more people had been able to have my nana to raise them.

this just confirms my beleifs even more. The problem is with those unwilling to accept responsibility, even for themselves. If we had more people like your nana, even to a slight degree, many of the problems we see today would just kinda stop being there.

[El Blanco]

Well that's a brilliant assessment. If people were healthier, healthcare would be cheaper! Amazing.

Actually, my point is if people were more responsible for themselves, healthcare would be cheaper,

[Preechr]

I don't particularly blame "the people." I blame Harry Truman for running on "A Chicken in Every Pot," and for every scumbag that has won an election on the same premise since.

And Zosimus, you have to look at who is in charge of paying those teachers. It's not Capitalism you are mad at. Government Control of Education is a central tenet in the Communist Manifesto.

Just so you guys know, most of my arguments stem from my understanding that there are only two forms of society in the world: Capitalism and Communism, and each style of government functions to a varying degree along that axis. I'm not a right-wing not job, so don't go changing the channel just yet.

I exist solely to clear up years of misleading propaganda regarding how Capitalism actually works. It's really not near as bad as you think, generally.

For example: You, Zosimus. I think I called you a closet Capitalist once. Maybe I've yet to prove that to you, but I'm not done trying.

[The One and Only...]

UnDeath: Things like that are what those plans someone suggest are for. Also, we'd have to provide for everyone or else it wouldn't be quite fair. Of course, B.G. type people would probably hire independant specialists anyway.

Preechr: Everyone pays taxes. I believe in a flat tax rate. Hence, everyone pays for healthcare, and everyone gets it. Your extremist points are just that: way too extreme to be taken seriously. I also get the sense that your argument is based on morals rather than practicality; not a good thing in politics.

FACT: My idea that big government will solve everything does not exist. I am talking healthcare. No more, no less. And I already pointed out that I am not necessarily talking about federal govt. It could just as easily be state or local. So I suggest you stop stuffing words in my mouth.

FACT: Throwing around words like infantile and naive will not prove anything other than you must resort to insulting in order to get your point across. At least, you think you do.

FACT: Your "fact", which really sounds like an opinion, that healthcare will get more expensive is completely wrong by any accounts I've ever seen. Example: Canada. Perhaps if you had looked at the link I provided earlier, you would have noticed that Canada spends fewer GDP on healthcare than does the U.S. And guess what? Government pays for healthcare.

FACT: There is no decision to make. If it is in the healthcare guidelines, you fix it. Simple as that. Furthermore, if they don't provide it, there is a little something called a lawsuit...

[El Blanco]

While it is true that goverments are typically wasteful, I believe I can say that does not make up for the drive for profit in companies. Even if companies are more resourceful, I still think that the gap would be in favor of the government as far as fewer expences to the citizen. I make this judgement from facts I have seen, such as on this: http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_402.asp

Stop comparing us to Canada or any other country with a different form of gonerment, smaller population, or different economy.

Furthermore, since the government does it the most expensive way, healthcare would be improved. Another strong point is that economic planners from those dead insurance companies could be hired to make the process as efficent as possible.

Give me an example of that happening in the last 50 years. The government will pay higher prices for inferior service. Its how they work. Again, look at their construction projects.


I do believe I just addressed that in the above statement.

No, you just said "Despite everythingI've seen, I'm sure the government can to a complete 180 and do this right"


I'm not really sure what your point was with that statement.

That a private company driven by profits can be predicted. They do their best by making customers happy. We, unfortunatly drove healthcare prices up, not them.



Words of wisdom indeed, but it will never happen.


Ya, well, why should be be rewarded for being animals?

And even if it did, the government would either cut taxes or put the money into something else, like education.

What? Explain that to me?

[Preechr]

No insult intended. You said yourself you didn't fit the criterion for which the insult would have applied.

More explanation is probably required. I can show you how morality and practicality are not mutually exclusive, and that my wacky ideas tend to have the appropriate mix of both. Above all, I use 100% efficiency as my unattainable goal in all things, and then find various ways for dealing with the disappointment my high standards inevitably generate. Beer generally works well.

I hope you guys are on here later. I'll be back, and I'll be interested to see how this has progressed...

[The One and Only...]

Stop comparing us to Canada or any other country with a different form of gonerment, smaller population, or different economy.

With that logic, I cannot compare it to anything, in which case no points can be made for or against this. I will say that they have a fairly similar form of government and economy, and that population does not really have anything to do with my point. There is a reason why Canada is often called a copy of the U.S.

Give me an example of that happening in the last 50 years. The government will pay higher prices for inferior service. Its how they work. Again, look at their construction projects.

As this is a purely hypothetical thread, it could be assumed that the government would not act like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off - thus making the point mute. But as I am comparing to Canada, whether you personally think I cannot, I still hold it would be cheaper. I highly doubt that they are any more resourceful than us, or at least anything to support the thought. Most governments are wasteful - it's just on such a large scale that they have to be.

Perhaps that is why I mentioned we could do it with the state or local governments in charge. It is quite possible that they would be less wasteful, and we could test the process in a few small localites to see whether or not our current system is more efficent.

That a private company driven by profits can be predicted. They do their best by making customers happy. We, unfortunately drove healthcare prices up, not them.

That is irrelevant to the thread. It would still be cheaper because of no incentive for profits.


What? Explain that to me?

I don't know what you need me to explain. Suppose everyone magically started getting healthier. More money was being taken in than was needed for healthcare. As such, either taxes are cut so that no extra money is taken in, or the money is put elsewhere - like paying the budget deficit.

[El Blanco]

I will say that they have a fairly similar form of government and economy,

And you would be somnewhat wrong.

and that population does not really have anything to do with my point.

Yes it does. How do you know how much money you need if you don't know how many people to spend it on?


As this is a purely hypothetical thread, it could be assumed that the government would not act like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off - thus making the point mute. But as I am comparing to Canada, whether you personally think I cannot, I still hold it would be cheaper.

So, why not just say God should come down and cure all illness? Its just as logical as what your asking.

That is irrelevant to the thread. It would still be cheaper because of no incentive for profits.


Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That is irrelevant to the thread. It would still be cheaper because of no incentive for profits.


Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but particularly in the health and medicine field, isn't this b/c Medicaid and Medicare programs throughout various states hold a policy of buying from the highest of the pharmeceutical company bidders...?

Were we to have a single-payer system, or socialized medicine, it would seem that this price jacking middle-man would be eliminated, no?

[El Blanco]

Yes, if the US government acts completely different from the way it has the last 60 years, things might be better. Might.

[The One and Only...]

[quote]And you would be somewhat wrong.

How so? Democracy and socialism are fairly similar, which is what I said. Not exactly the same, but they have some things in common.

Yes it does. How do you know how much money you need if you don't know how many people to spend it on?

My point was that population does not effect how well the system will work. If Canada were bigger and had a higher population, more taxes would be taken in from those people to pay for it. It's all proportional.

So, why not just say God should come down and cure all illness? Its just as logical as what your asking.

Because my main point was my second.

Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

It's cheaper in Canada, and that's the way they do it. So unless you're going to provide me with proof that the canadian government is any more resourceful that the U.S.'s, I still hold by that argument.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The criticism needs to go beyond merely the government, though.

The reason elected officials enact such crappy policies is because these companies dump campaign contributions on them.

[El Blanco]

And people elect them and take shitty care of themselves.


Stop looking at big bad corporations to blame for the problems with healthcare. Next time, look in the mirror.

[The One and Only...]

I'm not blaming anyone for problems with the healthcare system. All I'm saying is that if we took from socialist policies on healthcare, would it not be a more efficient system?

That, and somethings are not because people take shitty care of themselves. Take the poor coal miner that get's lung disease, for example. Or the man that get's caught in the fire. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And people elect them and take shitty care of themselves.


Stop looking at big bad corporations to blame for the problems with healthcare. Next time, look in the mirror.

You yourself just agreed that government policy is flawed. Yet you somehow don't agree that there just may be a corelation between the politicians who set the standards, and the contributors who serve to benefit from their decisions.

And as for your "just take care of yourself" argument, that's all well and good for folks who live in areas that aren't next to pollutant factories, who don't work in hazardous work conditions that may lead to both physical and other ailments, for folks who simply get cancer, for no reason, although they coulda SWORE they lived a healthy lifestyle, etc.

Life is full of choices with consequences, yes. But your happy little libertarian utopia of self-sufficiency can only go so far when people need to put food on their family's table and send their kids to college.

[El Blanco]

And exactly how many people get cancer for no apperent reason?

Its one thing to go to work to feed your family and get sick from pollutants. Its completly different to choose to live a shitty lifestyle.

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

[The_voice_of_reason]

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.


How exactly are we supposed to do that? You are suggesting an imposibility. People will continue to drink, do drugs, and smoke tabacco. I mean for gods sake our president did coke. The only way to get people to stop smoking (or at least slow down) is to make tabbacco illegle and we all know that will never happen.

[The One and Only...]

And exactly how many people get cancer for no apperent reason?

Its one thing to go to work to feed your family and get sick from pollutants. Its completly different to choose to live a shitty lifestyle.

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

I never suggested people would get cancer for no apparent reason. Where did this comment come from?

[theapportioner]

Blanco: A huge amount of health care expense comes from end of life care, and healthy and responsible or not, we all will experience the end of life.

[ranxer]

El Corpo are you suggesting that business is doing the right thing when they drop billions of dollars into polititians pockets? you are blaming the victims for the problems we face.. i dont think that's ever fair.. as if the people are organized enough or have the time it takes to get the corporations out of government. you think most people have the time it takes to investigate then, publicize, and follow up on corporate corruption??! damn! people are stupid and pathetic so they deserve what they get right?

id like to know how you all justify the fact that American health care is the most expensive(has the most profits etc) in the WORLD and yet covers the least number of people compared to all other '1st world' nations??!

im with rudy: http://dc.indymedia.org/ramgen/assickasitgetsrudymeulersnowshoefilms.rm

the whole treat it when its an emergency situation is a huge problem.. preventative coverages would save a Ton of money.

[El Blanco]

El Corpo? I'll admit to not pounding the weights like I used to, but "El Corpo"? I'm not that overweight.

you suggesting that business is doing the right thing when they drop billions of dollars into polititians pockets?

Where did they get their money in the first place?

you are blaming the victims for the problems we face

If you put a gun in your hand a pull the trigger, I won't get mad at the guys cleaning the carpet.

[El Blanco]

I never suggested people would get cancer for no apparent reason. Where did this comment come from?

Kevin the Herbivore said it.

[Preechr]

You're clouding the subject, Mr. I forgot your name already.

Let's say we restrict campaign contributions to only actual citizens... no double eligibility for folks that can contribute as corporations and such... what's your view on how to do Healthcare?

And to the other one that interrupted to mention a flat tax... What's the appeal over a consumption tax?

[Carnivore]

Healthcare expenditures would plummet if EMTs and paramedics were allowed to refuse to transport patients.

[El Blanco]

Based on what? I may be tough, but I don't want paramedics making sure little old ladies are insured before they start prepping them after a heart attack.

[Zhukov]

Democracy and socialism are fairly similar, which is what I said. Not exactly the same, but they have some things in common.



Sorry to butt in....... Socilaism IS Democracy.

Trotsky said: "Socialism needs Democracy like the human body needs oxygen."

And: "Socialism is Democracy or it is nothing."

This is the reason why there are no Socialist countries at the moment, and no real Democracy either.

:/


Free health care? Yeah!

[VinceZeb]

For the people that think the government could do health care well: Wow. If you do not realize that government will fuck up a 2 car funeral, then there is something wrong with you.

It is not the government's job to be "fair", "compassionate", or "kind". Our US government is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens, to protect our borders, and to help the country in dire situations. Granny Jones wanting to go to her bingo games every wed and fri instead of paying for her medicine out of her pocket is not my view of a "dire" situation.

If the government starts dolling out free medicine, medicine prices will rise becuase people will start demanding whatever they want, becuase they do not "pay" for it.

I mean, where the fuck did personal responability go in this country? Many of us choose not to have health insurance just because they do not want it. We would make and keep more money on average if we could get the money our employeer would pay for our health coverage and then we would go out and look for our own insurance.

Healthcare is not a right. Sorry, folks, but you have the "right" of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and property. Those are the rights you are born with. Healthcare, no matter how much the Hildabeast sits there and screams about it, is not something you should have for being human. Our ancestors didn't, so why the fuck should it be required for me?

Nice little quote from Professor Gary Galles of Pepperdine University

“How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken."

[The One and Only...]

For the people that think the government could do health care well: Wow. If you do not realize that government will fuck up a 2 car funeral, then there is something wrong with you.

As this is an opinion, I have no need to address it.

It is not the government's job to be "fair", "compassionate", or "kind". Our US government is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens, to protect our borders, and to help the country in dire situations. Granny Jones wanting to go to her bingo games every wed and fri instead of paying for her medicine out of her pocket is not my view of a "dire" situation.

The government's jobs are varied. Healthcare could easily be adopted to fit under one of it's priorities. Futhermore, if Granny cannot pay for her medicine, or if it would take up all of her saving so that she could retire, it would have more drastic effects than just bingo night.

If the government starts dolling out free medicine, medicine prices will rise because people will start demanding whatever they want, becuase they do not "pay" for it.

No. The government only pays for what you need - it doesn't pay for your vitamins and diet pills. Think of what insurance covers, and you'll probably get a similar list. A list somewhat bigger and full of absolutes (no you pay $10, they pay $50 stuff), but similar none-the-less.

Second, healthcare would not be free. As I have mentioned numerous times, it would be paid for by taxes.

I mean, where the fuck did personal responability go in this country? Many of us choose not to have health insurance just because they do not want it. We would make and keep more money on average if we could get the money our employeer would pay for our health coverage and then we would go out and look for our own insurance.

It's still a responsibility, just a group one rather than individual. So I fail to see your point.

Healthcare is not a right. Sorry, folks, but you have the "right" of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and property. Those are the rights you are born with. Healthcare, no matter how much the Hildabeast sits there and screams about it, is not something you should have for being human. Our ancestors didn't, so why the fuck should it be required for me?

It doesn't have to be a right for it to be a more efficient system. My main argument is not for the poor, but that on the whole, it would be a cheaper system.

Nice little quote from Professor Gary Galles of Pepperdine University

“How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken."

This isn't about rights. See my above point. If it's cheaper for you anyway, then I don't see the problem. If you don't pay for healthcare, you better pray you don't get in an accident. If you're a B.G. type person, a minor tax increase will not kill your business. In fact, you might make off like a bandit since you won't need to provide insurance for your employees.

[The One and Only...]

And to the other one that interrupted to mention a flat tax... What's the appeal over a consumption tax?

It was a reply to your comment on taking money from the rich. With a consumption tax, an argument could be made that it would not be entirely fair. That is something I did not wish to delve into with this thread.

[VinceZeb]

Do you think taxes comes out of thin air? It comes from my pocket, your pocket, EVERYONES pocket who pays taxes. And the people who are most likely to take advantage of "free" medicine are people who a) can afford to pay for it themselves but choose not to and b) people WHO DON'T PAY IN TAXES!

[Carnivore]

Based on what? I may be tough, but I don't want paramedics making sure little old ladies are insured before they start prepping them after a heart attack.

It has nothing to do with whether they are insured or not. It has to do with whether or not there is a genuine need for them to be transported by ambulance. Probably 40% of the people we transport do not need an ambulance and would be better off making an appointment with their PCP instead of going to the ER.

Sorry to butt in....... Socilaism IS Democracy.

I believe it was Max who pointed out at an earlier date that dictatorship and socialism are not mutually exclusive just as democracy and laissez faire capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

For the people that think the government could do health care well: Wow. If you do not realize that government will fuck up a 2 car funeral, then there is something wrong with you.

You're a moronic asshole. If the government was actually accountable for its actions, this would change. Too bad they're more worried about pissing off campaign contributors and corporations than voters.

It is not the government's job to be "fair", "compassionate", or "kind". Our US government is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens, to protect our borders, and to help the country in dire situations.

Thank you for your opinion on the function of government. Duhhh... let me just check my pocket PC and see if I care about your ignorant opinion. Oh, look! I don't! Hehehehe :dunce

Some of us are willing to take it upon ourselves to ensure the well-being of our fellow human beings. Some of us are selfish, arrogant, ignorant pricks who, while claiming to be followers of the Christian faith, care nothing about the neighbors they are supposed to love as they love themselves.

[kellychaos]

Before evolving into a wholesale socialism and make our government a larger bureaucracy than it already is, let's consider what a government supposed to be. Governments are supposed to regulate private enterprise, not take over their jobs. A little help is one thing, especially as a number of citizens have already paid into their right to this help, but total healthcare is a completely differenct issue. Why not consider changes to regulations that would limit the ridiculous price gouging in pharmacology and other forms of medical treatment? Implement more stringent laws for insurance fraud. Then maybe the insurance companies wouldn't be so fearful of their payouts and legitimate coverage may increase ... maybe even at a cheaper rate. Put a cap on the amount one can make from medical malpractice lawsuits or, at the very least, limit some of the frivilous lawsuits that are being heard. Then, perhaps, malpractice insurance may come down to a reasonable level so that medical profession wouldn't be so apprehensive in their treatment and may actually be able to stay in business charging customers reasonable rates for their services rendered. Although I'm not a big fan of private insurance, they ARE a business and I can see why they charge the way they do with the shape our healthcare system is in.

[FS]

For the people that think the government could do health care well: Wow. If you do not realize that government will fuck up a 2 car funeral, then there is something wrong with you.

Or, if the government will hypothetically fuck up a two car funeral, maybe there's something wrong with the government. Apparently, this is the same government you turn to to "protect the rights of the citzens, to protect our borders, and to help the country in dire situations." Do you trust them not to fuck up in these matters?

If the government starts dolling out free medicine, medicine prices will rise becuase people will start demanding whatever they want, becuase they do not "pay" for it.

Now, I'm not a US resident, but you folks worth with doctor's prescriptions just as we do, right? Or can you just waltz into any pharmacist's and demand 400 doses of the most powerful painkiller they've got in stock? Free healthcare would not mean medicine is a free-for-all. You'd get your money back for the drugs that a doctor says, in writing, you need. Something against the common cold would be yours to pay for. If you'd want medicine usage down to put the prospective costs of free healthcare down, maybe it would be sensible to tell doctors not to throw around descriptions for painkillers and antidepressants like it's confetti. It's really not a healthy situation anymore when any kid before the age of 12 can name at least a dozen kinds of legal brain drugs. I am of course sketching a caricature of the situation here, but I do believe leashing doctors a little would do a lot to bring down overal medical costs.

Healthcare is not a right. Sorry, folks, but you have the "right" of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and property. Those are the rights you are born with. Healthcare, no matter how much the Hildabeast sits there and screams about it, is not something you should have for being human. Our ancestors didn't, so why the fuck should it be required for me?

You also have the right to safety. To a certain degree, protection from physical harm, and the right to clean living conditions. Yes, to a certain extent, you have the right to good health. I'm not saying that the government needs to hold your hand and guide you through life as a bubble-boy. But healthcare in the hands of the government could make for a much more stable service than having it based on individuals. It's not rocket science. It's not a two car funeral. It's setting up a system that pays people back their legal prescriptions, or subsidizing pharmacists and hospitals (more). Your comment about ancestors is, as always, very amusing. Be sure to take down a bear for me this weekend, or there'll be no eatin'.

[The One and Only...]

Do you think taxes comes out of thin air? It comes from my pocket, your pocket, EVERYONES pocket who pays taxes. And the people who are most likely to take advantage of "free" medicine are people who a) can afford to pay for it themselves but choose not to and b) people WHO DON'T PAY IN TAXES!

a) It depends on how well off they are. If they are a multi-billionare, then that minor tax increase to cover healthcare would cost them way more than it would otherwise. So it's really a losing situation.

b) If they don't pay taxes, they are most likely breaking the law. That carries problems in and of itself. The few people in the U.S. that don't have to pay taxes are just that: few. It not break the system.

One could also argue that people who don't pay taxes abuse the system with free education, etc. in which case the entire concept of taxes is unfair. I certainly hope you don't suggest we stop all governmental services.

[Preechr]

I'm gonna try to limit myself to the topic here. I REALLY want to address that whole Socialism IS Democracy thing-a-ma-bob, though...

*breathes in deeply*

*counts to ten*

Ok... Trying to keep this thing to actually arguable topics, I guess I shouldn't talk about things that may or may not happen in the future, as that is subjective. Let's nail down what we can as Fact by looking only at the present and the past...

Before, I said that it was a Fact that as government has gotten more and more involved in Healthcare, Heathcare has suffered. Somebody said that was my opinion about the future or something, but I meant that as an observation of where we are right now as compared to how things were before our American Socialist Revolution began.

These are always subjective comparisons, because we live in a totally different world now than America was in the 50s and 60s. I'll treat it as fairly as I can, though...

My statement is partially wrong on it's face. It's not just government interference that has screwed the Healthcare system up. It's also the things that the government HASN'T done that's making things worse. DC is so excited about getting their hands in the pie that they are ignoring the stuff they're actually required to do like making sure doctors can treat patients without getting their asses sued off.

Somebody mentioned the rediculous costs of Medical Malpractice Insurance. Did you guys know that doctors are the only private segment of workers in America that are not allowed to speak with a group voice? This is ostensibly because we don't want to experience the Healthcare strikes that plauge other countries (incidentally, doctors are striking primarily in countries with Socialized Healthcare...) The problem is, that's a trust contract, and the government has continually broken their end of the deal.

Anybody can sue anyone for anything, and most cases settle regardless of merit due to the exhorbitant costs of defending against even the most unsubstantiated claim. This is the primary factor behind what we see as price gouging for medical services. Basically the same thing happens to Pharmaceutical companies, driving up the prices of medication.

Here's an example: Any of you have pets? Chances are, at some point your Vet has given you some Benedryl for your pet to take, for whatever reason. Dogs and Cats can't sue, so the same damn Benedryl you would buy at the pharmacy for YOU is WAY cheaper when you buy it for your pet.

Hopefully, I'm not over-simplifying this. I can be more detailed if you wish... Basically the secondary point I'm making here is that it is the government's molly-coddling of lawyers and the law-trade that's helping to screw up Healthcare, NOT the system itself. The mandatory guarantee that no one can be turned away from a Hospital only encourages folks to go to the Emergency Room every time they get a freakin COLD, get treated for free, and sue the Hospital on a bogus charge of negligence... bah... This gets way too complicated way too fast....

Ok... Back to the future... Let's say you get your dream of Socialized Medicine to become a reality. The very first thing that is going to change will be your ability to sue for Malpractice. There's no way the government will even attempt to Manage Healthcare under the current rules that are savaging medical service and supplies providers. My question is: Why can't we just do this now?

I'll answer that! Government wants to control Healthcare. It is doing what it needs to do to make that happen.

[Zosimus]

For example: You, Zosimus. I think I called you a closet Capitalist once. Maybe I've yet to prove that to you, but I'm not done trying.

Knock yourself out trying to prove that point! In fact forget about the point...just knock yourself out period!

[Preechr]

AWWW!!! See, now you've hurt my feelings... I really thought we had a breakthrough there for a minute, too....

I'll rephrase myself then, since you seem to be taking what I said as offensive: I don't remember exactly what went on between you and Erik, but please don't let one guy get under your skin so much that you hate the whole community he rarely posts in. I don't know what it is exactly people see as the great challenge in pissing him off, but years upon years of dealing with that has taken its toll on his tolerance.

You seemed to have fun with your time on Anti, and I think you'd enjoy the Filter these days just as much. I actually won't be trying to complete your conversion over to Raging, Libertarian Capitalist here, but if you're interested in why I see that as possible, if not inevitable, or in how I plan to do so, please feel free to register over there and find your answers.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

[AChimp]

Our ancestors didn't, so why the fuck should it be required for me?
Umm... I can show you many instances throughout history where our ancestors DIDN'T have life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, Vinth, so don't get all worked up about what amounts to a pile of horseshit.

In fact, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness haven't been in practice for all that long when you look at the entire history of civilization. People had to start those ideas somewhere, so why not do the same with healthcare?

Oh wait, you shouldn't have to pay for all the other 300 million Americans that would partake of it, since all the burden would be placed on YOU, naturally. :blah

[ranxer]

el blanco.. i thought you might get that i meant something along the lines of el corporate. you seem to be much more interested in blaming people for letting the corporate monster do whatever it wants than accepting that corporations Are doing whatever they want. I'm much more interested in blaming the perpetrators rather than the victims. i think we should revoke the corporate charters that give corporations more rights than human beings. >:

preechr.. is the
1. litigious society problem the biggest drain on healthcare? sure that's one of them, but theres a long list.. if that's the biggest problem id say..
2. corporate markups is the second largest, sheesh we pay tax dollars to help these drug companies develop drugs often in college labs then they turn around and markup 1000's of % and sell them back to the folks that helped them develop the damn drugs.
3. then we have ad campaigns.. drug companies spend billions on marketing. capitalist competition for the most profits might rival the other two problems in total cost. the drug companies are the single largest return on investment business in the country.. is this health care or wealthcare?

so, government should be able to fix all three. and with the money saved we should be able to cover everybody with the basics especially if we work hard on prevention.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And exactly how many people get cancer for no apperent reason?

Come on, man. You know that everything and nothing gives you cancer.

Its one thing to go to work to feed your family and get sick from pollutants. Its completly different to choose to live a shitty lifestyle.

Do you eat a lot of red meat? If we had a universal coverage system, would I mind if my tax dollars went towards your heart disease...? No. Why? Because I'll be happy knowing that I get coverage through the system. For every one over-weight smoker I'm supporting, there'll be equally as many justified health problems that I will be aiding to prevent or cure.

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

Let me ask you this. Were you in favor or against the indoor clean air act passed in New York???

[El Blanco]

Do me a favor and remind me that act. I think there were a few specifics I was opposed to, but understood the spirit of the law.

[Preechr]

preechr.. is the
1. litigious society problem the biggest drain on healthcare? sure that's one of them, but theres a long list.. if that's the biggest problem id say..

It's the trunk of the tree. My first comments addressed the root system: The government wants to control the significant chunk of our GDP that is Healthcare. It has allowed free-reign of lawyers on the system to that end, hoping to destabilize the structure until public perception shifts to how you guys are seeing it and government is called in to fix it all up real nice...

2. corporate markups is the second largest, sheesh we pay tax dollars to help these drug companies develop drugs often in college labs then they turn around and markup 1000's of % and sell them back to the folks that helped them develop the damn drugs.

And all those folks buy boats, right? I'm not going to argue that drug prices are rediculous, but I will say that is a product of prices being so hidden from consumers, mostly. There are some truly amazing drugs out there, and we should expect to pay the price for the research that produces innovation imbedded into the cost of the drugs we need. I personally feel that we take much more drugs than necessary.

A Doctor that prescribes a drug instead of actually treating the patient is only ever passing the liability off on the drug maker. Chances are, in most cases, she was just not willing to tell the patient that they need to quit whining and straighten out their life. Doctors are truly making their living against all odds generally, and they have developed a very belligerent attitude about their business and customers. You can hardly blame them. You will not leave a Doctor's office without treatment of some kind. It's a business.

3. then we have ad campaigns.. drug companies spend billions on marketing. capitalist competition for the most profits might rival the other two problems in total cost. the drug companies are the single largest return on investment business in the country.. is this health care or wealthcare?

*resists urge to capitalize, edit and puntuate for you*

Nobody is watching the back door, and all the horses are getting out. I agree that it's a racket. I'm pissed that the government is taking the stand that they will not help fix the problem at all until we reliquish all control of the entire industry to it completely.

so, government should be able to fix all three. and with the money saved we should be able to cover everybody with the basics especially if we work hard on prevention.

We could work on prevention now, but we aren't. The government could be making us more health conscious and doing what it can to stem rising Healthcare costs, but it isn't. I fail to see how removing competition will lower prices. I fail to see how rewarding government for destroying a perfectly good Healthcare system and endangering God knows how many people is appropriate.

Where do you guys get your trust for politicians? How have government employees and beaurocrats earned your respect?

When it comes right down to it, I want to live in a world where people get fired for doing a shitty job, especially when lives are at stake. Socializing Healthcare would eliminate that from the system, and we would suffer for it.

This board is constantly reminding me of that "Simpsons" where Homer ran for office under the premise of "Can't Somebody ELSE Do It?!"

I know the mess that is American Life seems awfully complex sometimes. That is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Instead of throwing up your collective arms and calling what has been built over the last couple hundred years a complete waste of time and then heading back to the drawing board, why don't you look for the easy answers?

Sure, if you build the system from the ground up you will all of a sudden understand it... but just because you don't understand the system we have now doesn't mean you have the right to destroy it and replace it with something you patched together freestyle on a message board...

Sure, what we have now looks from the outside to be wholesale profiteering with no concern for patients. How would you feel, having devoted 8 years to a Doctorate and your entire financial future to a system that could ruin you at the random whim of some jerk looking to sue anybody he can to avoid working for a living, only to find out that it's a near certainty that in a matter of years you'll probably be out of a job, or, at best, you'll be a government employee.

Keep in mind... their ain't no Doctor's Union. It's illegal. I'd rather be an underwater welder, personally...

[Miss Modular]

Did anyone see The Daily Show last night? Ed Helms was reporting on Senior Citizens getting their prescription drugs from Mexico.

[El Blanco]

they just replaid it. It was pretty funny.

[ranxer]

preechr
Where do you guys get your trust for politicians? How have government employees and beaurocrats earned your respect?

so you are responding to my statement that government should be able to fix all three? i didn't mean that i expected them to fix it and i should just wait for it to be fixed. I meant that in my view it is the ROLE of government to set the rules for business such that our rights are protected.. leveling the playing field so that profit is not the main focus of healthcare.. health should be the main focus of healthcare.

I am active in politics not passive so i mean nothing less than citizen lobbying, campaigning, and organizing to get these views out there.


and blanco.. you think that might makes right? you think that if you are stronger than me you have the right to boss me around?
you think that if you can get away with something you should go ahead and do it? like jeeze the guy didnt lock his car so he must not want to keep his stereo! i'm sorry but America is nearly professional at blaming the victim.. whether its a welfare mother or an Iraqi its the norm >:

[El Blanco]

and blanco.. you think that might makes right? you think that if you are stronger than me you have the right to boss me around?


Never said anything like that. I just don't see how you ca demand that health care providers change when we are the main reason the system got to where it is.

People not taking care of themselves.

Doctors getting kick backs for sending people in for expensive procedures like MRIs and such when it is totally unnessacery.

People who want magic pills to fix all their problems instead of preventing them in the first place.

I do believe that the government should put a leash on companies, especially in the health care industry, but who the hell honestly believes that federalizing the industry would improve a damn thing?

i'm sorry but America is nearly professional at blaming the victim

Bullshit. We are 100x better at playing the victim.

"What do you mean liting a stick on fire and inhaling its exhaust is bad for you. So what the box has a warning from the nation's #1 doctor that these things are dangerous. I'm suing"

"What do you mean a vehicle with an 18' wheelbase flips over on 20 degree turnat 80 mph? I'm suing!"

"what do you mean eating meat that been soaking in beef for eight hours for my lunch and dinner every day for the last 20 years is bad for me and my kids? I'm suing!"

Fuck. When did litigation take over for our common sense?

And one more thing: 60% of insurance costs go to lawyers. Hmmm, wonder how that happened.

[ranxer]

alrighty, yes i can agree that! too many do play the victim and blame others for thier problems.

i thought you had been referring to americans not taking care of corporate abuse.. now i get that you were referring to health.

/salute um, yes my anti-corporate views tend to jump out a bit fast. :/

[Preechr]

Major differences in opinion on how economics is supposed to function, I suppose. I think I see where you're coming from, but I guess I just view that as a less efficient path.

No matter who gets the job done, we are talking about the efforts of individuals. If every individual works as hard and effectively as possible, the job will get done well in either situation. The only difference between my way and your way is the motivation of those individuals to do the work well.

I agree that the goal should be Health, but I don't trust people to be motivated by unselfish goals. They should be, but they aren't ever in any reliable way. I would not set out to build a structure as important as Healthcare on a foundation of trust in something I don't believe exists.

Don't get me wrong... If you and I were to be solely responsible for Healthcare, and somehow were able to get the job done, we would have pure motivation and I'm sure everything would be just peachy. Most people aren't wonderful like us. They don't get out of bed every morning because they can't wait to lend a helping hand. They get up to get to work so they can sell their time yet another day, in hopes of one day being able to buy a jetski.

Profit motivates people. Lack of Profit is a clear indication your methods for attaining it are flawed. Bankruptcy is the last step for stubborn and prideful companies. There are no negative consequences for the Healthcare system in your Social plan. My Capitalist plan forces the companies that participate to constantly tailor their methods to fit consumer demand better than their competition.

I understand all the old reasons why we should be scared to death of cold, heartless Capitalism. Here's a link to an incomplete concept you might appreciate. http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=20

The problems we associate with Capitalism do not stem from it's application. The problem is that we won't let it be fully applied. It's just too scary, I guess.

That's a whole nuther discussion, however... As I said above: I see your point, but I disagree that government control of anything that can be handled privately is in any way good or better. The closer the solution is to the problem, the more appropriate the solution is to that particular problem. The furthest thing from any of your problems within America is the Federal Government.

I'm going to go re-evaluate the beginnings of this thread. I'm starting to think that if I were to stop reading "Socialism" into everything I might be close to agreeing with whomever started this thing...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Do me a favor and remind me that act. I think there were a few specifics I was opposed to, but understood the spirit of the law.

I opposed it on libertarian grounds. Ya know, as of July 19th(?), no more smoking in bars, diners, various restaurants, etc...?

But my point is this: The bill was half assed in one way that it didn't extend to REALLY clean "indoor air" in NY. It still left plant workers and other labor types exposed to polluted air in the work place. On the other hand, before the bill was proposed, it allowed diners and bars to expose their workers to such conditions. People like waitresses at diners accept this, b/c they need to pay the bills and feed their kids.

So, do THOSE people not deserve the benefits of a single-payer system, or do they deserve to suffer for making poor "lifestyle choices"???

[El Blanco]

For some odd reason, I thought that was the one that banned smoking in government buildings. Brain lock.

YA, I do oppose that. Mainly because I frequent NYC bars and flipping out the Zippo to light a girl's smoke was my main ice breaker. Fucking cock blocking lawmakers.

Seriously, my main issue with this is the timing. We are in the middle of a budget crisis. Bloomberg is cutting firehouses, police, sanitation, and the schools are floundering. Somehow, he is finding the funding to enforce this law which does nothing than tell grown adults how to behave.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Seriously, my main issue with this is the timing. We are in the middle of a budget crisis. Bloomberg is cutting firehouses, police, sanitation, and the schools are floundering. Somehow, he is finding the funding to enforce this law which does nothing than tell grown adults how to behave.

Well, in Bloomberg's defense, he was left a city budget in 2001 that left him few options but to cut services AND raise fees. I oppose the fair hike, I can agree to a commuter tax, though.

I don't see his justification for this act, other than a moral crusade. However, since the state is already persuing it themselves as well, he may have been left with little choice. Maybe he wanted to install his own version, thus having more of a say over it. I dunno.

But I digress....

[El Blanco]

I think he is just a disgruntled Red Sox fan who is doing everything he can to flush the City down the crapper.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well, the state of NYC, post-Giuliani, is another topic in its entierty (sp?). Just read Newfield's book "the Full Rudy". Very interesting, although abstract.

Anyway, in corelation to the topic at hand, do you not justify your tax dollars going towards the health of those who work in such conditions? Did they too simply make bad choices? If that's so, how many "choices" do Americans have these days???