RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare

RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/19/2007 2:25:01 PM)
Postal Service - depends on what you call successful. I believe most of their mesaure of what would be considered success, occured after the Fed strings were cut. FAA? What do you base the success there on? Army? We do the military well, but success on mission rate has been pretty poor in the last 60 years. Interstates are a success. Yeah they do etc very well, it is what they have been doing well for the longest I believe. You have a mouth like that, and you someone has not made you a jello eater yet <grin>. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So in the last 50 years, what are some of the successful Federal programs again? Postal service, army, FAA, interstate highways, etc... You don't know as little as that and they still let you vote?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/19/2007 2:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vampyrefledgling Nationalize all energy concerns? Right, like I trust anyone in this (or any other) White House to make any sort of intelligent decision in that respect. Almost anything nationalized will be influenced by politics (duh)....(snip)...Banks shouldn't exist? Interesting, though I don't know how keeping my money in a tin can is any better than in a bank, if only for convience sake. With respect... I set a bad example by indulging those red herrings. They aren't the subject of this thread. All I wanted to show by replying was that those same complex issues the other speaker identified were rife with government involvement. The idea that those issues exist in some protected free market bubble invulnerable to interference is absurd. Each of those subjects probably deserves to have its own thread. This one is about universal healthcare. How to do it. Why we shouldn't do it. Etc.

pogo4pres -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/19/2007 2:48:06 PM)
That is the preamble to the constitution, and nearly everyone forgets it, excepting constitutional law students and geeks such as my self. You would think the chickenshit congress critters would know this as well, but they are too tied to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about when he left office. So we get a defense budget that exceeds next 7 combined as of 2001. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Zensee -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/19/2007 9:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Socialism in the end means less choice, less control, less opportunity. Bull. Z.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 1:43:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Socialism in the end means less choice, less control, less opportunity. Bull. Z. Someone ought to tell NTUY that when you have no money you have no choice and that 40 million of his compatriots are in that situation. What is more, if the country was in danger, the right would expect those same people they are happy to see die through lack of healthcare, be willing to die for their country to protect the wealth and health of the rich.

Archer -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 7:08:24 AM)
The answer is are you willing to let the same government that makes military decissions that you isagre with so vigorously also make the decissions about your healthcare. What about when the opposit party gets into power and rewrites what gets covered by the "Universal coverage" and what does not. This 4 year period we will not be providing HIV care since it's a "social disease". Next 4 years we will be providing abortion on demand at government expense, the following 4 years what will or won't be covered? I agree they have killed alot of the free market influence on quality in healthcare, That happened when the Government wrote the tax law that made it advantagous for the Employer to provide for your insurance. Bottom line is Whoever is directly paying for it is who the market will respond to. If that's not you then responsiveness to your wants and desires is going to be secondary or even less. If Government is paying for it then the system will form in such a manner as to make the Government happy not the customer. If the Business is paying for it then the sytem will adapt to make the business happy not the customer If you as an individual are paying for it then the system will adapt to make you the customer happy. Currently the focus of healthcare is on satisfying the Insurance companies happy They in turn are focused on keeping their stock holders happy first and their customers (the businesses) happy. They are in turn focused on keeping their customers happy (keeping their prices down) and then the employees happy. So as a person in need of healthcare you are what #8 on the list of people they need to keep happy? And you wonder why they are not patient focused???? Remove the middle men reduce the number of people between the consummer and the provider that need to be kept happy and you will see the system improve. Shifting from a system where most Insuance is provided by employers to a system where it is provided by the government will do little to reduce those problems. Want to see how Government (Specificly this US government) will provide Healthcare. Take a look at county hospitals, take a look at VA hospitals. If that's good enough for you then I can't argue too much faced with that. If you find them lacking then we can talk.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 7:20:58 AM)
We are ideologically poles apart so it is really pointless agruing other than pointing out that taxpayers in countries with universal healthcare pay less far less for their healthcare than Americans. I very much doubt German, French or healthcare in any Scandinavian country is inferior to American healthcare. My guess is for the vast majority of citizens who don't have bottomless pockets it is better. My brother who lives in California and loves it, says the one thing that sucks in America is the healthcare (not the clinical care) and its focus on ripping you off for doing as little as possible when you are really ill or as much as possible when you aren't ill, just to get money out of your pocket.

Zensee -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 8:50:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Socialism in the end means less choice, less control, less opportunity. Bull. Z. Someone ought to tell NTUY that when you have no money you have no choice and that 40 million of his compatriots are in that situation. What is more, if the country was in danger, the right would expect those same people they are happy to see die through lack of healthcare, be willing to die for their country to protect the wealth and health of the rich. Indeed. Anyone who is suspicious of elected Governments should be ten times as suspicious of unelected leaders running corporations which have the legal rights of individuals, little accountability and which behave like sociopaths. The myth of private sector superiority in all matters - creativity, efficiency, accountability - is just that, a myth. What ever the private sector can do the public sector can do without bleeding off profits. Essential services and resources belong to everyone and should be administered by elected authorities. People who are still channeling Joseph McCarthy may harpingly call it socialism but it just sounds like democracy to me. By the people, of the people, for the people and all that... you know... community, society, nation... Z.

Sinergy -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 10:45:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Bottom line is Whoever is directly paying for it is who the market will respond to. Let us take a hypothetical. Person X is a bum with HIV and liver disease down in a box in a major city. One night, the person is non-responsive and driven to the local hospital, admitted, put on breathing treatments, given medications, perhaps surgery, etc. Person stays a week in the hospital and is discharged. Who pays the bill? People who oppose universal health care NEVER answer this question. Care to take a whack at it, Archer? Sinergy

Archer -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 12:29:54 PM)
Sinergy in the past I have answered the question many times failure to recall OK fine 1. I have always maintasined that those unable to afford it should recieve aid from the government. 2. my issue has never been indigent care, although it is a perfectly viable aspect of Healthcare it constitutes such a small percentage of the entire problem. Your example is cherry picking specific indigent folks it's a transparent "You have no heart" tactic. Society has an obligation to provide things for those unable to provide for themselves it's the manner by which you seek to provide it that we differ on. I advocate a private sector solution with government filling in the gaps, you advocate Government as the sole povider. We differ in values and in what we believe to be the best solution. At least 6 times over the past year I have posted my prefered solution and in every one of those postings I included allowances for taking care of cases like the one you mentioned. I know we already pay for such a man, I am simply advocating another means to distribute heathcare costs than both what you and many others have proposed and different than what we have now. If you need reminding of the solution I have proposed many times 1. Make all health insurance premiums pre tax dollars (just as if the business was providing it) 2. effect #1 a reasonably large number of folks would then be able to afford the insurance lessening the total number of people who need government assistance. 3. If insurance is all equally treated tax wise then the employees could negotiate cash equivolent raises (ie 20,000 + insurance premium allowance of $200 a month that the employee can spend with any company) 4. The ability to move from one company to another has already proven effective in reducing or keeping low auto and Homeowners insurance rates 5. The price battles that ensue when companies have to compete for each policy individually instead of focusing on the business owners will reduce costs as well thus allowing even more people to afford insurance. The jist of it is when you have reduced the pool of people that cannot afford insurance to those who just really cannot afford it ou end up with a managable number of cases that realy do need government assistance. Top that off with an additional program of allowing major hospitals tax breaks for donation of outdated technologies, supplies etc to community clinics. Sell them the program by doing the cost benifit annalysis of having a few small free community clinics supported by them indirectly without liability transfer. against the improved ability of their hospitals to provide ER treatment without the indigent care, or the uninsured comming into the ER. The community gets their care, the hospital gets rid of the problem of overburdened ER.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 1:03:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The answer is are you willing to let the same government that makes military decissions that you isagre with so vigorously also make the decissions about your healthcare. Yes, I am. If Americans can't get it together on this one issue then I will have lost all hope for this country. Without Universal Healthcare we are going to lose ground and become a third world labor country within the next 50 years. Every other country in the western world has more or less settled this issue and is now merely in the process of tweaking the systems they have built. To be honest, I doubt Americans are smart enough to make universal healthcare happen. I routinely give very serious consideration to moving to another place in the world where people do not have their heads so firmly planted up their asses. Americans think they are number one in most areas of modern life. But that hasn't been true for quite some time. A very rude awakening is in the offing and the lack of universal healthcare is one of the reasons that so much of our manufacturing is taking place elsewhere.

Sinergy -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 1:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer 1. I have always maintasined that those unable to afford it should recieve aid from the government. This is synonymous with Universal Health Care; to whit, everybody is entitled to some form of health care. quote: Your example is cherry picking specific indigent folks it's a transparent "You have no heart" tactic. It is not. Thank you for insinuating I am using some vague tactic. It is my pointing out that because we do not have Congressionall mandated universal health care, our government (read: YOUR taxes) are the bitch of big medical and big pharma because we (read: the people) have not empowered our government to negotiate from a position of strength. quote: I advocate a private sector solution with government filling in the gaps, you advocate Government as the sole povider. I do not. Please do not ascribe positions, tactics, or motives to me. I dont mind having some of both. I love my benefits because my union negotiated from a position of strength and made the shipping companies our bitch, which in turn forced the shipping company to make big pharma and big medical their bitch. A person who cannot afford insurance should be covered. Our government should negotiate from a position of strength to get such care from medical and pharma companies, the same way insurance companies do. Empower our government to negotiate from strength, let people pay more or get insurance from their employer (who also negotiates from a position of strength) and everybody is covered under Universal Health Care. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 2:47:58 PM)
No Universal healthcare involves providing it for everyone at government expense my proposed action is providing it by private means for thise able to afford it (and making it easier for them to afford it) and then using the government to provide only for thise unable to provide for themselves, there is a huge difference. Universal Government pays for everyones rich and poor, hybrid Those who can afford it buy their own and Government fills in the gaps. It most definately is cherry picking, in fact it is textbook cherry picking (you selected a very specific hypothetical) Attibuting it to the heartless tactic may have been in error but I doubt it. I would rather Empower the individuals to negotiate than the government. There is no convincing me that giving the government more power, in this case the power to not only negotiate the profit entirely out of healthcare, as well as determine how it will be rationed. The problem many of the Governments with National Health Services are facing now. SugarMyChurro I don't doubt you want them to have both those powers. I would though take real issue with the example of the Post Office as an example of Government subsidized being a success. They do an acceptable job of most mail but exceptionall mail seems to require a private for profit solution. Fed Ex, DHL, UPS, all in competition with the Post Office and providing better service, and making a profit doing what the Post Office swears can't be done by them. I don't see the same future youi do we'd probaly like what the other sees as the future of healthcare in the US better than the one we see ourselves. I doubt Universal Healthcare can be avoided in the US for more than another decade. I see it being another social Security debacle (ie insolvent) before the next 30 years. I see The government fighting over the minutia of rationing decissions for voting blocks. (There is a larger number of folks with alhiemers than with MS so we'll cover the one but not the other in order to make the budget fit, and not lose enough votes to cost us the next election. I see the rules changing just as often as the rule the insurance companies have now. I see the people giving over that power as easily as they gave over their retirement to Social Security and being just as dis satisfied when it doesn't cover everything they want it to cover. Wanna switch magic 8 balls ? LOL

Vampyrefledgling -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 2:48:51 PM)
SugarMyChurro~ you are quite correct. I apologize for straying so far off topic, although, may I say, respectfully, that the mention of nationalizing an industry is (in a manner of speaking) what we are talking of now. I don't pretend to understand all the logistics involved in policy making. What I will say is that if so many countries around the world have figured out a way to provide healthcare for their citizens, why can't the US take a page from those books instead of reinventing the wheel? It is not that we do not have the resources to do this, it is a lack of desire. It is a lack of understanding the necessity of it. Democratic socialism isn't a bad thing. ~Fledgling

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 3:17:20 PM)
Archer: By keeping healthcare tethered to private insurance we are burdening industry and small businesses with the healthcare of their employees. Why is that a good thing? Aren't you the one that constantly talks about the hidden cost of products simply being passed to the consumer? The way it is now, healthcare is like a nested doll of middlemen. It's just nuts! Think of the HR savings in reduced managerial hours. Here's another one for you: do you think doctors, dentists, ophthalmologists, etc. enjoy dealing with the complex problems of billing multiple insurers just to get paid? Some patients carry two or three kinds of insurance that all pay out differently based on the existence of other coverage. Someone very close to me maintains a staff of eight employees to deal with the insane paperwork overhead of just getting the billing accomplished correctly. There's a hidden cost for you. I guess the upside is job creation, but I have to admit that it seems ridiculously inefficient. The way things are we are just throwing money away on inefficiencies that literally boggle the mind.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 6:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Oh, I know another one let's give control of oil to the federal government...or housing(why not socialize all housing lenders, or housing entirely), or hell banks...Farming that's really important to, with the milk prices the way they are, and corn prices(were anyway, haven't really looked in awhile) surging... Well, rhetorically you are engaging in an argument of distraction by introducing a series of red herrings. But I find your BS amusing and will indulge your topics in brief counter-attacks.... 1. Oil is subsidized by war. There is no free market, just a free ride for the well connected. Frankly, I'd prefer to nationalize all energy concerns and eliminate the waste and profit. Without a profit motive at stake for anyone, I'd also hope to move to fuels and energy sources other than fossil fuels and coal. Solar, wind, hydro, hemp oil, etc. 2. Housing is substantially becoming controlled by the government. If you're poor you might rate some assistance. If you own outright try not paying the property tax on your home and find out who really owns it. 3. Banks shouldn't really exist in the first place - the federal government is supposed to coin money in gold and silver. Since they do not - right, it's another subsidized free ride for the chosen few. From the Federal Reserve on down... 4. Farming is heavily subsidized and government regulated. And speaking of corn... 5. ADM is heavily subsidized also. They have turned being subsidized into a kind of art form with which to burden the taxpayer. Read here if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midland So really, you're talking out your ass and aligning yourself with the powers that be and of whom you are not a part. They use the myth of a capitalist free market that does not now exist and, in fact, has never existed to maintain the status quo! And sadly, you've taken the whole thing in raw and swallowed. You act like medical services are like other kinds of services - but no one can truly plan for catastrophe. People that think just like you are regularly bankrupted by the status quo healthcare system. You are young enough that the best unasked for advice I can offer is for you to use the experiences of others to make a better decision than the one you seem satisfied with now. I've seen you spewing the libertarian jive for some time now - but don't believe the hype. Look around you and see what is and what can really be done. Theories only work in books. I've said it before: we are in a post-Constitutional era. We might as well take back our cut of income taxes now, starting with universal healthcare. Ummm, yeah, I know we are already have to much merging of government and corporations as you've just pointed out, that is my point, and when that happens things don't get better they get worse. I'm against those things, but here you go wanting more of it. So, why would I want even more government and corporation comingling, it seems odd to me, that on one hand the vast majority of people complain about federal intervention, corporate subsidies, and mismanagement, and in the next breath want to hand there life over to them(healthcare). We live in a post-constitutional world. Well, it may be true. That doesn't mean its right. I actually believe we will get every thing you want, I just don't believe it will help one bit overall.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 6:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Socialism in the end means less choice, less control, less opportunity. Bull. Z. Someone ought to tell NTUY that when you have no money you have no choice and that 40 million of his compatriots are in that situation. What is more, if the country was in danger, the right would expect those same people they are happy to see die through lack of healthcare, be willing to die for their country to protect the wealth and health of the rich. Geez, Meatcleaver if you read my first post on the issue you'd find your post is complete, bullcrap. I did address that concern already. Didn't figure you for a bandwagon sorta guy. LOL.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 9:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Ummm, yeah, I know we are already have to much merging of government and corporations as you've just pointed out, that is my point, and when that happens things don't get better they get worse. I'm against those things, but here you go wanting more of it. Here's what doesn't work: 1. Constitution based arguments 2. Expecting politicians to do what's right because that's their job 3. Expecting tax reform or for taxes to go down 4. Libertarianism and any blather about small, limited government And frankly, this list can go on and on... Here's what does work: 1. Lobbying congress hard 2. Being the squeaky wheel So, we aren't going to get anything unless we basically scream bloody murder about it. Then congress will act if only to shut us the hell up. And we have to make them feel it too, vote them out if need be. Admittedly, we aren't reinventing the government - we are just going to whine our way into another kind of entitlement spending (if you like). I just happen to think spending money on the people is actually justified while subsidizing the war machine and big oil is not. If they have money for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big War Machine, Big Mercenaries, Big Private Prisons, etc - then they have money for the people too. Thing is, you can't now guilt me for wanting what I want even though I might be getting it the wrong way. The right way has not been available as an option in my lifetime. I'm not waiting any longer - the time has come to whine, wheedle, and effectively lobby what I want into the deal. The corporations do it; "we the people" can do it too. Universal healthcare now!

Sinergy -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 9:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer No Universal healthcare involves providing it for everyone at government expense my proposed action is providing it by private means for thise able to afford it (and making it easier for them to afford it) and then using the government to provide only for thise unable to provide for themselves, there is a huge difference. Universal Government pays for everyones rich and poor, hybrid Those who can afford it buy their own and Government fills in the gaps. I would suggest you rethink your position, Archer. There are any number of different ideas afloat. Talk radio tries to narrow it down to a us or them position. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: The Road to Universal Healthcare (8/20/2007 10:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Archer: By keeping healthcare tethered to private insurance we are burdening industry and small businesses with the healthcare of their employees. Why is that a good thing? Aren't you the one that constantly talks about the hidden cost of products simply being passed to the consumer? The way it is now, healthcare is like a nested doll of middlemen. It's just nuts! Think of the HR savings in reduced managerial hours. Here's another one for you: do you think doctors, dentists, ophthalmologists, etc. enjoy dealing with the complex problems of billing multiple insurers just to get paid? Some patients carry two or three kinds of insurance that all pay out differently based on the existence of other coverage. Someone very close to me maintains a staff of eight employees to deal with the insane paperwork overhead of just getting the billing accomplished correctly. There's a hidden cost for you. I guess the upside is job creation, but I have to admit that it seems ridiculously inefficient. The way things are we are just throwing money away on inefficiencies that literally boggle the mind. I guess you missed the part where I said specificly that I wanted the Businesses to pretty much get out of the providing healthcare deal. Rather they would simply pay the employee more and not provide the insurance. (That along with the change in taxation of non business provided insurance so that ALL HEALTH INSURANCE is purchased with the exact same tax structure that being pre tax dollars) Then the Employee decideds which insurance company provides them with the best deal for their money. This forces two things Cost down and accountability up Insurance companies would then not only need to keep the big bosses (The head of HR and various VP's) happy with low premiums (and the current low quality) but would have to compete for every single policy just like your auto and homeowners insurance. Don't like the way Company X does customer service OK shift to Company Z. I'm talking about removing a few layers of crap between the Insurance company and the customer. How much say do you get in deciding what Insurance company your Company chooses to enrole you in? Unless you are very blessed little to non. My way you get to choose exactly which insurance company you want to spend your money with. I'm refering to the basic golden rule postulate #3 He who pays the bill makes the rule. If the government pays the bill, the hospital answers not to the individual consumer but rather to the Government flunky G-6 in the Dept of Health and Human Services. If you think you have no say in government now wait till you give them even more power. Sinergy, Yes a number of floating ideas being put out there. But the ones from those likely to get anywhere are generally heavy on Government light on private sector. And I'm quite sure that anything that I would consider reasonable would never get through. So like SugarMyChurro I'm gonna be sqeeky too, canceling out. As I said I don't believe I'll win the battle, we're doomed to all end up with VA Hospital level care. and to watch as mediocre Doctors begin to be imported to fill in the gap. Because the ones who have real tallent will be tying to find someplace they can be paid well for their skills.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.570313E-02