No more foolig around, we need Universal Health Coverage

[Bob 0119]

The Constitution requires it.

This should be good.

Why don't you show me?

Right here, the Constitution is to guarantee these among other things to the American people

- a more perfect Union
- justice
- domestic Tranquility
- secure the Blessings of Liberty

How can we have any of these things without access to health care? MLK said no man is free unless all men are free, isn't it the same with a perfect union, justice, tranquility and blessings of liberty? Can any man have those unless all men have those? And if they can't pay for it, the right to welfare is in the constitution as well, look it up.

So by providing people who can't afford health care with the welfare to get access to it, you're creating those things for yourself. It only stands to reason.

Sure, so we enslave the majority to substandard healthcare, at increased cost through taxes (which also aren't mentioned in the constitution either) and remove people's freedom to chose the level of healthcare they want because some can't afford as much as others?

That seems a little bass-ackwards

[KazooSkinsFan]

dup

[KazooSkinsFan]

To me that is a bit of a stretch Kaz. To say we have a Constitutional obligation to provide health care to everyone is "expanding" the elastic band of the Constitution to fit your argument. I would say there is an ethical element to provide health care for all; not a Constitutional one.

Well, which part of my argument do you disagree with exactly? Can we have justice in this country with the inequity of a two tier health care system? Can we have domestic tranquility when some are getting hair plugs and lyposuction and others can't see a doctor to care for their sick child? I thought the Martin Luther King Jr. argument nailed it, can some have justice and not others in a free country? Where did the Reverend go wrong? Where did the Founding Fathers go wrong when they called for a Constitution based on justice? Where's the beef in your argument?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Sure, so we enslave the majority to substandard healthcare, at increased cost through taxes (which also aren't mentioned in the constitution either) and remove people's freedom to chose the level of healthcare they want because some can't afford as much as others?

That seems a little bass-ackwards

Not at all. Does the more you pay entitle you to better roads or the same roads? Should the rich be exempt from global warming? Breathing pollution? Should being rich entitle you to hiring someone to be sick for you or age for you? Sure, we have better cars and nicer homes, that comes with work and achievement. But with the basic necessities of life like sharing the roads, breathing the air, living a normal human life we are all in it together. And again, why should some be able to get nose jobs and others not be able to get cure for cancer? What kind of morality system is that? And how is it "cheaper" to have the poor go with reasonably cost basic treatment and end up in expensive emergency rooms?

No, I'm sorry Bob. But my friend, what you're saying doesn't make sense. It just rationalizes an unjust system that I guess happens working in your favor.

[Cappster]

To me that is a bit of a stretch Kaz. To say we have a Constitutional obligation to provide health care to everyone is "expanding" the elastic band of the Constitution to fit your argument. I would say there is an ethical element to provide health care for all; not a Constitutional one.

Can we have justice in this country with the inequity of a two tier health care system?

Can we have domestic tranquility when some are getting hair plugs and lyposuction and others can't see a doctor to care for their sick child?

I thought the Martin Luther King Jr. argument nailed it, can some have justice and not others in a free country?

Where did the Reverend go wrong?

Where did the Founding Fathers go wrong when they called for a Constitution based on justice? Where's the beef in your argument?

We all have the same opportunity to be covered by health insurance. Obviously its harder to afford coverage if you make less money, but that is the nature of a capitalistic democracy. I am not arguing whether or not everyone should be guaranteed health insurance. I am, however, arguing against that it is Constitutionally required.

You point out the lack of justice and tranquility for those without health insurance. The only injustice would be to keep certain groups of people from the opportunity the same insurance. They have the very same access at around the same costs. Tranquility is a peaceful state of living and I would only loosely tie health coverage as having calmness or serenity. Many other factors go in to a state of being tranquil.

MLK's argument is not valid in the case of health care. Everyone has access to health care. Like I said earlier, it is just harder for some to afford, but the coverage is available. Now, do I believe health coverage should be more balanced and affordable? Yes. Is it Constitutionally guaranteed? No.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I am, however, arguing against that it is Constitutionally required

What I think crazyhorse meant and what I'm arguing is not that the Constitution directly "requires" it but that we can't meet the Constitution without it. They were very clear in requiring a system of peace, tranquility and justice. How can you have that when mothers can't even take their sick children to the doctor? Hiding behind those who can afford it and who can't is lame, Cappster. That's the callous unconcern for the citizenry that brought down the Romanovs and brought in the Boulsheviks. How was capitalism or justice served by that? How can we trust our citizens not to turn on us when they see the elite who can afford it the endless use of over testing, over medication and elective care?

You point out the lack of justice and tranquility for those without health insurance. The only injustice would be to keep certain groups of people from the opportunity the same insurance. They have the very same access at around the same costs

So suppose we only allow automobiles on the roads during the day that cost $20K or more to keep traffic and accidents down. Can we justify that by saying anyone is free to buy a 20K car and if they can't afford it that's just the nature of capitalism?

[Cappster]

I am, however, arguing against that it is Constitutionally required

What I think crazyhorse meant and what I'm arguing is not that the Constitution directly "requires" it but that we can't meet the Constitution without it. They were very clear in requiring a system of peace, tranquility and justice. How can you have that when mothers can't even take their sick children to the doctor? Hiding behind those who can afford it and who can't is lame, Cappster. That's the callous unconcern for the citizenry that brought down the Romanovs and brought in the Boulsheviks. How was capitalism or justice served by that? How can we trust our citizens not to turn on us when they see the elite who can afford it the endless use of over testing, over medication and elective care?

You point out the lack of justice and tranquility for those without health insurance. The only injustice would be to keep certain groups of people from the opportunity the same insurance. They have the very same access at around the same costs

So suppose we only allow automobiles on the roads during the day that cost $20K or more to keep traffic and accidents down. Can we justify that by saying anyone is free to buy a 20K car and if they can't afford it that's just the nature of capitalism?

I believe that interpreting the Constitution and how it relates to peace, tranquility, and justice is very difficult to rationalize. That is why we are always trying to define what are actually "rights" as citizens are. I see nothing in the Bill of Rights that would lead me to believe that anyone's rights are being infringed upon. If anything, health care seems to be more of a state issue as it relates to the Constitution.

With that being said, in reality, a total Capitalist society is doomed to failure without some socialist elements. The hard part of dealing with social programs is who is going to benefit the most and who is going to get screwed the worst? By national average, I am a middle class citizen. I pay a premium of 3600 a year to insure myself and my son (not including copays and any other expenses). I choose to enroll in the plan at work that offers the most benefits, but cost a lot more money. How will I be fairly compensated with health care reform? I am not rich and have to watch my spending from month to month, so what will be the cost/benefit ratio of a Federally regulated health care system? Won't we just be throwing ourselves at the mercy of more government meddling instead of private companies competing with one another?

As you can see, I believe its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I am just not sold on the idea that this health care reform plan will work to the benefit of the people without costing (not just money) in the long run.

[Bob 0119]

So, let me see if I understand this theory.

- “The poor” are costing us money in taxes, by going to the emergency room where they can receive “free care.”

- Somehow we could avoid this, or at least reduce the tax burden; by giving “the poor” a blank check to go to any doctor they wanted, whenever they wanted. This would bring down the tax burden because they would either be healthier (because they are now under the regular care of a doctor, who is far less expensive than an ER) or at least would schedule an appointment with a regular doctor when they need something looked at that isn’t an emergency?

And all of this is going to REDUCE the financial burdens on our economy, because of all the money we are going to save based on how much healthier “the poor” are going to be?

Maybe UKSkins can help me out with my data, but everything that I’m hearing about countries with “socialized” medicine; scheduling a doctor’s appointment isn’t a matter of days, but a matter of months to get an appointment.

People still use the ER’s in the UK for non-emergency reasons because you can at least see a doctor within hours instead of months. I hear it’s so popular that they have a law that says that anybody in an ER waiting room must be seen within four hours!

Hardly seems like they’d need such a law if everyone was getting such great preventative medical care, as with your theory. The ER’s should be barren wastelands with nothing but trauma cases.

From what I hear, some of these ER’s can’t even meet the four hour legal requirement, so what they do is they leave patients in the ambulances outside of the hospital since the clock doesn’t officially start until the patient enters the hospital.

Of course, I also hear that the Hospital only gets paid by the government if they actually admit you, but they really only need to take you so far into the hospital in order for you to be deemed “admitted”. This means they can take you to a certain place far enough into the hospital, tell you you are going to be fine, turn you around and send you on your way, and cha-ching, they have played the system and got paid for it!

The big point you are missing is human nature.

People in general don’t simply go to the ER because it’s free. It isn’t free. You still receive a bill. They still call you to collect.

People go to the ER for one of two reasons; one, they aren’t doctors, so they don’t know what is and isn’t going to kill them. They are hurt, they are sick, but most importantly, they are scared whatever they have might be serious. They don’t want to wait until the next day to see a doctor, they want to “walk in” somewhere and be told they are going to be okay.

That is the second reason; they are impatient. They don’t want to schedule an appointment for the next day, or three days from now. They want to see a doctor right away. They don’t want to call around to a bunch of different doctors to see if any have an appointment for today, they know the ER can see them today; saves them the time and trouble.

It doesn’t matter whether you are insured, or uninsured, the mentality is still the same.

Now if you want to see a doctor the same day, you have to start early in the morning; and then maybe they can squeeze you in. If you get sick, or hurt in the afternoon, then you have to wait at least until tomorrow. Most doctors’ offices aren’t open 24 hours a day; but the ER is.

That’s why ER’s are generally busier at night. Welch worked in an ER and I am confident he’ll support that fact. It’s not simply because people are dumber at night (though that certainly doesn’t hurt) it’s because they don’t want to wait 24 hours to see a doctor.

How are they going to react to having to wait as much as 6 months to see one?

I’d love to see the stats on this, but I would be willing to bet that there are more people with insurance that go to the ER than those without. I’m sure the percentage is overwhelming. I’m guessing 90% have insurance.

People with insurance are far more likely to go to the ER for reasons far less life-threatening because, well, they aren’t paying it, that’s what they have health insurance for. Those are the people who are driving up the cost of healthcare. More expensive bills go to the health insurance company, and in return, more expensive bills go out to the insureds.

Yes, those without insurance do go to the hospital ER, and yes, a significant percentage of those without health insurance never pay their hospital bills. To counter this, hospitals increase the costs of an ER visit. Everything costs more in an ER; from simple gauze bandages to over the counter medicines.

They make their money back for those who don’t pay (“the poor”) off of those who do pay (those with health insurance)

It’s not tax dollars paying for it; it is the healthcare industry itself paying for it. These hospitals don’t just submit their unpaid bills to the government; they do what any business does when it encounters losses. They raise prices. Like when people shoplift from a store, the store increases it’s prices.

So, even if we go to a single payer system, your theory is flawed. People will still go to ER’s for non-emergency reasons, but instead of reducing the amount of people who do, it will actually substantially increase.

See, you assume that everyone without health insurance just goes to the ER simply because they can. You assume that when they go it is for non-emergency reasons. You assume that these people are dead-beats who because they have no health insurance they know they can simply go to the ER and not have to pay.

In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many without health insurance will avoid going to the hospital. Many don’t realize that the “ER is Free.” Hell, most will pay for a taxicab to take them because they are afraid of how much the ambulance ride is going to cost them (I know, I work at a cab company. I also know that our volunteer fire department does not charge for ambulance transport).

Many of these people are suckers because even though they don’t have health insurance, they still fall for the old “bill-collector gag” that the hospital plays on them. You see, the hospital doesn’t pretend that their ER treatment is free. They still send you a bill, and they call you and they harass you, and they really make you believe that you need to pay it. Some of these poor schlubs actually take money out of their own pocket and---gasp---pay their bills!

As with ALL Government programs, Government run healthcare will fail. The quality of care will decrease as the costs to us increase.

You keep trying to compare proposed Government healthcare to roads. Why don’t you try comparing it to Medicaid? Because you know Medicaid is an awful program that is steadily losing money. Medicaid and Medicare are great ideas, but flawed execution. They are the best example of what we can look forward to with a Government run healthcare system.

Then what’s next? “The Constitution guarantees a right to food” so we can all eat Government cheese? “The Constitution guarantees a right to shelter” so we can all live in Government housing? “The Constitution guarantees the right to employment” well, by then, all of our money will be going to the government in taxes to pay for our food, housing and healthcare anyway, so we may as well all be government employees, right?

Maybe we can form those wonderful lines for stuff like Russia did! They seemed to enjoy it! Bread lines and Toilet Paper lines; sounds like fun! We certainly won’t have to worry about anyone having anything better than anyone else as we can all have crap!

Stale bread and half-assed products manufactured by people who only work to sustain the government! Can’t wait!

[KazooSkinsFan]

...

You keep trying to compare proposed Government healthcare to roads. Why don’t you try comparing it to Medicaid? Because you know Medicaid is an awful program that is steadily losing money. Medicaid and Medicare are great ideas, but flawed execution. They are the best example of what we can look forward to with a Government run healthcare system

...

OK, but I'm curious how by passing laws denying people access to health care you're going to get around the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does a sick person who can't be treated pursue life liberty and happiness? Equal protection? Please, when Congress allows you can go get hair plugs and lipo and someone else can't get her kids into see a doctor unless they're sick enough to go to an ER there is no equal protection in our laws. Congress not only should pass legislation which provides equal and not unequal access to health care but it's required to.

[Cappster]

...

You keep trying to compare proposed Government healthcare to roads. Why don’t you try comparing it to Medicaid? Because you know Medicaid is an awful program that is steadily losing money. Medicaid and Medicare are great ideas, but flawed execution. They are the best example of what we can look forward to with a Government run healthcare system

...

OK, but I'm curious how by passing laws denying people access to health care you're going to get around the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does a sick person who can't be treated pursue life liberty and happiness? Equal protection? Please, when Congress allows you can go get hair plugs and lipo and someone else can't get her kids into see a doctor unless they're sick enough to go to an ER there is no equal protection in our laws. Congress not only should pass legislation which provides equal and not unequal access to health care but it's required to.

How exactly is the "state" depriving anyone of life, liberty, and happiness with regards to health care? They have the same access to health care as the rest of us. They are equally protected, but they just have to pay for it like the rest of us. Its NOT like people are physically being kept from health care services.

[Bob 0119]

...

You keep trying to compare proposed Government healthcare to roads. Why don’t you try comparing it to Medicaid? Because you know Medicaid is an awful program that is steadily losing money. Medicaid and Medicare are great ideas, but flawed execution. They are the best example of what we can look forward to with a Government run healthcare system

...

OK, but I'm curious how by passing laws denying people access to health care you're going to get around the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does a sick person who can't be treated pursue life liberty and happiness? Equal protection? Please, when Congress allows you can go get hair plugs and lipo and someone else can't get her kids into see a doctor unless they're sick enough to go to an ER there is no equal protection in our laws. Congress not only should pass legislation which provides equal and not unequal access to health care but it's required to.

Who is passing any laws denying people healthcare?

If anything, it is the restrictive nature of Government run healthcare that will be doing the denying. You will have only one option. The rich will still have better healthcare than the rest of us. You keep failing to see that. Even if we go to a "single payer" system. They will just fly to whatever country will perform whatever surgery they want. Currently rich people from around the world come here for proceedures.

Sure, some people's options are more limited than others, but does that mean that everyone's options should be so limited?

People are homeless. Should we all live in a shelter?

People are starving. Should we all go without food or just get whatever handouts we can?

People are unemployed. Should we all quit and go on unemployment?

Some people don't have cars. Should we all walk to work?

Some people are paralyzed from the waist down. Should we all confine ourselves to wheelchairs?

Sure, it is our responsibility, as people, to help others in need, but we don't do it by becoming part of the needy. We should be helping them up, not going down to live with them!

I do a lot of my hiring from the local homeless shelter, and the probation and parole office. I don't just give these people money...I give them jobs!

Now I can't make them work. I can't force them to be here on time...all I can do is give them the opportunity to get themselves back on track. Some do; most don't. I've had better successes out of convicted felons than I have people living in a homeless shelter.

Most come looking for a paycheck, but then don't try and do anything other than have a job so they can stay in the shelter. Some go on and get apartments, and start paying off whatever debts they owe.

We've helped employee negotiate with Child Support Enforcment so they can try to get out of the gutter, but you can't help those who won't help themselves.

I am uninsured because my employees are uninsured. I could get on with my wife's insurance policy from her work, but it only decreases the pool of employees in my small office and makes it harder for us to get healthcare.

I'm still trying to find a solution that will work, but my options are currently limited due to Government regulation.

My company can't join a co-op and increase the pool of members by banding with other companies.

We only have three companies to choose from because of limits on who's allowed to sell health insurance in my state.

There isn't enough competition, so those three companies all charge about the same, and have no reason to reduce their prices.

If the government would LIFT their current regulations, it would dramatically reduce the high cost of healthcare by allowing for more competition.

They don't want to do that. It would be contrary to their goals of gaining more power over the people.

If the government would set limits on damage awards for malpractice lawsuits, it would reduce costs even further, but they don't want to do that either. Too many of the politicians themselves were one trial lawyers, or make a ton of money from trial lawyers.

I know my argument is futile. The Government is already practically saying "all of you health insurance are belong to us", but my hope is that peope will wake up and realize that the government isn't working so hard on healthcare to help the poor, or because the dialectic demands it, it is simply a power play to take away (more of) our freedoms.

[HEROHAMO]

The bottom line is this. We have major issues that need to be solved.

My list of these issues are

1. Economy
2. Immigration
3. Health Care

Since this post was on health care I will share myview on taking care of this issue.


We all pay taxes. We all know Government wastes these tax dollars in numerous ways. So why not for once put our tax dollars to good use? The list of wasteful government spending would take me days to list so I wont. I trust you all know that Government has and will continue to spend our money. Not that all of it is wasted in a bad way. Just that Alot of it is spent unwisely.


Ok my plan.
I would build brand new hospitals and pharmacy's in each city. Some cities will need more hospitals according to there size.
I will then contract out the project to local construction companies creating some jobs for the locals. Since we have state, city, and county workers like police officers, fireman etc..

Why not have your local City Hospital with Doctors and nurses who are on the Government payroll? This in turn will create new jobs and a boost to the economy. I would feel fine knowing my tax dollars are being put to good use. Most of us agree with our tax dollars paying a Police man or fireman. Why not the Doctor? The nurse?

You can still have private health care. Now you just have competition. To drive down prices and make it competitive. When a new company comes in offering cheaper prices and better service. The rest of the companys better pay attention and get with the program. That is after all Capitalsim. Let the best of the best win.

[KazooSkinsFan]

How exactly is the "state" depriving anyone of life, liberty, and happiness with regards to health care?

Because Congress is providing access for some people to knee jerk hypochondria, over medication, over testing and elective procedures while not even providing well care to millions of children. How is that not flagrantly anti-14th amendment? Our government should be providing equal access to health care for all Americans. If all we can afford is basic care for everyone, that's better then the system we have now which is so unequal which by the 14th amendment is and should be Unconstitutional.

They have the same access to health care as the rest of us. They are equally protected, but they just have to pay for it like the rest of us. Its NOT like people are physically being kept from health care services.

Not you on the class warfare, Cappster! The economic walls of servitude. You can get all the health care you want! Just don't eat. Live in a shelter. Borrow the money. Just pay money you don't have.

I have to go back to the Romanovs. The poor saw them living in opulent luxury while they were starving. They saw the rich's dachas, diamonds and lavish parties while they wore rags and begged. Isn't that what caused them to listen when Lenin and the gang offered to take the Romanovs and gang from power? I'm sorry maam, I can't see your sick child but I'm booked with nose jobs today. Tomorrow's lipo surgeries and the rest of the week I have tee times, don't hold your breath. Where will you hide when the masses are looking for you?

[Bob 0119]

The bottom line is this. We have major issues that need to be solved.

My list of these issues are

1. Economy
2. Immigration
3. Health Care

Since this post was on health care I will share myview on taking care of this issue.


We all pay taxes. We all know Government wastes these tax dollars in numerous ways. So why not for once put our tax dollars to good use? The list of wasteful government spending would take me days to list so I wont. I trust you all know that Government has and will continue to spend our money. Not that all of it is wasted in a bad way. Just that Alot of it is spent unwisely.


Ok my plan.
I would build brand new hospitals and pharmacy's in each city. Some cities will need more hospitals according to there size.
I will then contract out the project to local construction companies creating some jobs for the locals. Since we have state, city, and county workers like police officers, fireman etc..

Why not have your local City Hospital with Doctors and nurses who are on the Government payroll? This in turn will create new jobs and a boost to the economy. I would feel fine knowing my tax dollars are being put to good use. Most of us agree with our tax dollars paying a Police man or fireman. Why not the Doctor? The nurse?

You can still have private health care. Now you just have competition. To drive down prices and make it competitive. When a new company comes in offering cheaper prices and better service. The rest of the companys better pay attention and get with the program. That is after all Capitalsim. Let the best of the best win.

I think I see what you are saying.

It kind of makes sense.

You mean create a healthcare version of the post-office?

One in every city, staffed by Government employees, in direct (if not slightly unfair) competition with the private sector? Kind of like a VA for civilians, right?

I'd have my concerns about the costs of such an endeavor, and what it would do to taxes, but you may be right, it might help nudge down the healthcare costs by allowing a seperate option.

I still think we need to allow people to be able to purchase healthcare across state lines, form co-ops for businesses and individuals so they can purchase insurance with larger group rate discounts, and limit malpractice awards to really help bring down costs, but this wouldn't interfere with that.

[Countertrey]

You mean create a healthcare version of the post-office?

Yes... they've done a fabulous job with the post office.

[crazyhorse1]

In a perfect world, maybe a government run healthcare system could work. But not this world .. and certainly not this government. We have plenty enough evidence right now to show that government involvement in the healthcare industry has led to many of its problems today. More government involvement is therefore not the answer.

The system itself is beyond reform, as it's very foundation is corrupted. Because the healthcare system is run like every other business (profit driven), profit will continue to take precedence over results. And to expect the healthcare industry to prevent and cure disease is akin to expecting the oil companies to seek alternative energy solutions. It's simply counter to their own interests. Their friends in government will never fix the fundamental failure of the system, because there is no profit in curing or preventing disease. The big money is in managing and treating sickness. Therefore you could very reasonably say that sickness is a friend to the industry, while wellness and good health is the enemy. And so long as the industry has this "unhealthy" relationship with disease and sickness, health and well being will NEVER BE it's goal. So, any proposed solutions to reform the system will be cosmetic.

Removal of government involvement should be the FIRST STEP in the process of any real reform. Starting with the abolishment of the FDA. The FDA right now is the primary force in protecting the status quo, and of preventing competition to the central monopoly of the powers of the industry. A careful look at FDA activities over the past 30 years will show that they are not the watchdog government agency safeguarding the public interests, but are in fact the primary obstacle to alternative approaches to wellness which might threaten this "sickness" driven industry. The very idea that government could be the solution to this mess ignores government's roll in creating the mess to begin with.

Let's take one example. The government passed a law that says that no product other than an FDA "approved" pharmaceutical drug can claim to treat, mitigate, or cure any disease. The argument was that this was needed to protect people from harmful or useless products. Unfortunately, the result of this was to make any alternative to the pharmaceutical monopoly illegal. And the FDA gestapo offers no mercy for violators regardless of the value of alternative, natural products.

The medical establishment will stop at nothing to protect their own interests, and the pharmaceutical industry is the driving force behind all "healthcare" policies and products. Any competition to this stranglehold on healthcare will be met with the harshest of responses, backed up by police powers of the FDA to shut down, seize assets, and prosecute anyone who dares promote healthy alternatives to mainstream drugs.

The very fact that prescription medications, used as directed, result in more deaths annually than all illegal drugs combined, proves that the government cannot be trusted to provide or manage a healthcare system. Therefore, any reform of the system would require a complete removal of government intrusion, and the repeal of all laws protecting the industry's monopoly. This first step would allow the emergence of alternative medicine to re-enter the system, focusing on wellness and disease prevention, rather than continuing to stifle that competition, and continuing to promote sickness.

Get a grip, Ray. If the government, in relation to healthcare insurance, is corrupt (which it is), it is because it has been corrupted by insurance companies and their millions, which has prevented reform.

Insurance companies are the original bad guys, as you say. How will it benefit us to continue letting them run the show?

On the other hand, if the government ran the insurance business (single payer), the primary bad guys would be gone and voters could focus on those members of congress taking bribes (campaign contributions) from other branches of the medical profession.

After a few rounds of this, the public would finally catch on and demand more sensible regulation and reasonable prices throughout the health industry.

And it could be done. It has been done before, Ray. In America. Think of the fall of the Robber Barons and the rise of the middle class that came with the New Deal. Almost always, real progress is made after the correction of abuses by government action.

The opposite is almost always also true. Abuses almost always follow government inaction.

Not so coincidently, income distribution in the USA began skewing again to the top etchelons when Reagan's famous "The government doesn't solve problems, it is the problem" nonsense took hold. Since that time the middle class has been shrinking, rapidly and big business scandals have been endless.

When the government doesn't regulate, the wolves come out, corrupt what's left of the government, and eat all calves, fatted or not. If the upper class had its way, all of the rest of us would be earning minimum wage.

In sum, Ray. Whether you like the government or not, the real task now is to put the government back in charge and uncorrupt it. If it's broken, fix it. If it's slow, speed it up. If it's inefficient, make it efficient.

The alternative is to let it and the country be taken over by America's predatory bankers, brokers, wall street big shots, corporate heroes, health insurers, polluters, etc.

I'm sorry there is no third option. Not my fault.

[KazooSkinsFan]

On the other hand, if the government ran the insurance business (single payer), the primary bad guys would be gone and voters could focus on those members of congress taking bribes (campaign contributions) from other branches of the medical profession

What about lawyers lobbying against tort reform? What about Unions lobbying for the right to publicly force people to install them eliminating private ballots? What about the AARP lobbying for more welfare based only on age? What about environmental, government teacher, race whores (like the Rainbow coalition), pro illegal alien and other radical left groups who fill Democratic coffers? Are you against them bribing politicians too or is that "different?" In other words you agree with them so it's OK?

[Irn-Bru]

In sum, Ray. Whether you like the government or not, the real task now is to put the government back in charge and uncorrupt it. If it's broken, fix it. If it's slow, speed it up. If it's inefficient, make it efficient.

[Bob 0119]

You mean create a healthcare version of the post-office?

Yes... they've done a fabulous job with the post office.

Exactly my point about why I wouldn't want the Government soley in charge of healthcare...

But if they were doing it in competition with the private sector, then yeah I wouldn't have a problem with it specifically for that reason.

As I stated, my chief concern would be in how much it would cost us in increased taxes.

[Countertrey]

You mean create a healthcare version of the post-office?

Yes... they've done a fabulous job with the post office.

Exactly my point about why I wouldn't want the Government soley in charge of healthcare...

But if they were doing it in competition with the private sector, then yeah I wouldn't have a problem with it specifically for that reason.
As I stated, my chief concern would be in how much it would cost us in increased taxes.

And, how, exactly do you prevent corrupt socialist politicians from subsidizing their beloved "highly efficient because all of their overhead costs are hidden by burying them in other nondescript parts of the budget just like Medicare and Medicaid" public health program to the point that they run private companies into the ground?


Once that occurs, there is no longer a competitive model to force quality and customer service.

We get crap in the end.

[Bob 0119]

You mean create a healthcare version of the post-office?

Yes... they've done a fabulous job with the post office.

Exactly my point about why I wouldn't want the Government soley in charge of healthcare...

But if they were doing it in competition with the private sector, then yeah I wouldn't have a problem with it specifically for that reason.
As I stated, my chief concern would be in how much it would cost us in increased taxes.

And, how, exactly do you prevent corrupt socialist politicians from subsidizing their beloved "highly efficient because all of their overhead costs are hidden by burying them in other nondescript parts of the budget just like Medicare and Medicaid" public health program to the point that they run private companies into the ground?


Once that occurs, there is no longer a competitive model to force quality and customer service.

We get crap in the end.

Because just like you said...look at what a great job they've done with the post office.

And if something like this fails, it would be a lot easier to scrap it than it would be to try and restart the heath insurance industry once that's been eliminated.

[KazooSkinsFan]

In sum, Ray. Whether you like the government or not, the real task now is to put the government back in charge and uncorrupt it. If it's broken, fix it. If it's slow, speed it up. If it's inefficient, make it efficient.

I added fixing government to my "todo" list for crazyhose right after changing the gravitational fields of the earth and ending solar flares so they don't disrupt communications. I'll be knocking all that off as soon as I finish my current project, traveling to the Andromeda Galaxy and back.

Where is the nurse with my meds? Maybe she's still in my Indian friend's room. I wish she'd hurry up I'm getting dizzy.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Exactly my point about why I wouldn't want the Government soley in charge of healthcare...

But if they were doing it in competition with the private sector, then yeah I wouldn't have a problem with it specifically for that reason.

As I stated, my chief concern would be in how much it would cost us in increased taxes.

You lose me on this logic. How is it "competition" with the private sector when government provides services for free to it's "customers" and charge taxpayers the bill? How is it competition when government makes the rules? Would it be "competition" if Exxon Mobile could charge all motorists for the gas they provide to the people to come to their station and only what they want to charge to the people who get the gas? Could we trust Exxon Mobile to make even remotely "fair" rules in a marketplace if they are competing in it?

This is the worst of all possible choices. Either just have government take it over or government stays out of it. Government making the rules and "competing" when they can charge whatever they want to users and bijll whatever they want to taxpayers with the power of government guns to collect would lead to a facade where government can justify even more extreme market inequity as it has a whole new arena of justifications to fabricate.

[KazooSkinsFan]

And if something like this fails, it would be a lot easier to scrap it than it would be to try and restart the heath insurance industry once that's been eliminated.

Ignoring the naive view that the companies would still be around by the time the population realized what a disaster the situation was, would it really be easier? A simple test. Name one government program ever that was "scrapped."

[Irn-Bru]

In sum, Ray. Whether you like the government or not, the real task now is to put the government back in charge and uncorrupt it. If it's broken, fix it. If it's slow, speed it up. If it's inefficient, make it efficient.

I added fixing government to my "todo" list for crazyhose right after changing the gravitational fields of the earth and ending solar flares so they don't disrupt communications. I'll be knocking all that off as soon as I finish my current project, traveling to the Andromeda Galaxy and back.

Where is the nurse with my meds? Maybe she's still in my Indian friend's room. I wish she'd hurry up I'm getting dizzy.

crazyhorse, one way to (legitimately) think about free markets is that the free market is a vast conspiracy to drive all profits to zero. Profits are simply a price signal that there is a disparity between the value of something — i.e., what people are actually willing to pay for it — and what most people perceive the value to be. Profits are a big target sign on an industry that there are inefficiencies and opportunities to make things better. When someone does their job well, they paradoxically work themselves out of a job — which is OK, though, because they've made life that much more tolerable in the meantime and can then move on to an near-infinite number of new opportunities.

Where profits are increasing rapidly — especially where this increase appears to come at the expense of others — there is always a legally enforced privilege lurking. Big business knows this, and is consistently in favor of the very political policies that many believe are designed to help the poor against big business. Do you really think the medical insurance industry is a big free market?

Freedom rewards production and leaves bureaucracy and inefficiency behind. If you really hate the big profits companies take while poor people are hurting, you should support pro-free market policies.