No more foolig around, we need Universal Health Coverage

[Bob 0119]

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.

Well, a couple of things.

Even if it were "free-to-all" which it wouldn't be (they would make you qualify based on income), you'd encounter the same nightmare you encounter by going to the post office. You'd have the enthusiasm of an underpaid government employee at every step of the way. From the nurse at the check in desk to the doctor that sees you.

Secondly, you would have long waiting lines for such a service. Maybe several hours for an emergency, maybe several months for routine check ups.

Those who could afford to go someplace else; would. And when they did, they would price compare. They would call a doctor's office and ask the question nobody really asks "how much is this gonna cost me?"

Thirdly; Implementation would be gradual. If it became a success in larger cities, than it would grow out to smaller communities. If it failed in a larger city, then the impact would not be as great by it's loss.

I'm not saying it is THE idea, but it would incentivise other healthcare providers to reduce their costs. Not to the level of "free" but to a level more attractive to potential cash-paying customers.

We are already seeing some of that in the fom of "cash only clinics" where you can see a doctor for less than $50. The doctor can afford to have prices that low because he doesn't deal with insurance companies, so it reduces his over-head costs.

Canada has universal Healthcare, yet they are seeing a growth of "for-profit" clinics. You would think there wouldn't be a market for such a thing where you can see a doctor for free, but there is.

As always, my chief concern would be in the tax increases needed to subsidize such an endeavor, but they damn sure would be lower than a total government takeover of healthcare.

[crazyhorse1]

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?

I am against the bribing of congress from either direction, my friend. Lobbying efforts should be informational only, not a shelling out of bucks for campaign uses. How can a deliberative body deliberate when its members will lose their jobs, not because of their rational views, but because they fail to toe the line of contributors, from the right, or from the left. The problem is money. As long as money from corporations and special interests groups is allowed to flow into campaign coffers, our deliberative bodies will be a pact of whores, unable to fashion coherent and intelligent policy. We need an intelligent, uncorrupted government above all else.

[crazyhorse1]

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?

I am against the bribing of congress from either direction, my friend. Lobbying efforts should be informational only, not a shelling out of bucks for campaign uses. How can a deliberative body deliberate when its members will lose their jobs, not because of their rational views, but because they fail to toe the line of contributors, from the right, or from the left. The problem is money. As long as money from corporations and special interests groups is allowed to flow into campaign coffers, our deliberative bodies will be a pact of whores, unable to fashion coherent and intelligent policy. We need an intelligent, uncorrupted government above all else.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I am against the bribing of congress from either direction, my friend. Lobbying efforts should be informational only, not a shelling out of bucks for campaign uses. How can a deliberative body deliberate when its members will lose their jobs, not because of their rational views, but because they fail to toe the line of contributors, from the right, or from the left. The problem is money. As long as money from corporations and special interests groups is allowed to flow into campaign coffers, our deliberative bodies will be a pact of whores, unable to fashion coherent and intelligent policy. We need an intelligent, uncorrupted government above all else.

I agree with you on that. Your statements would carry more weight though if they didn't just happen to come up when criticizing views you disagree with.

[Countertrey]

We need an intelligent, uncorrupted government above all else.

You gotta love Reed and Landrieu!

Is corruption always illegal? Is trading a vote for money corrupt?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Forget reform or even a “public option,” we need to go to a single payer medical system in this country where the single payer is the government. While usually against government involvement in our lives, the difference between libertarians and anarchists is we do want government to do those things that only government can do. Military, police, roads and yes, health coverage, are examples of those things because they cannot be effectively and equitably performed by private industry.

Universal access to healthcare benefits us all

Republicans talk about how anyone can go to an emergency room if they are ill. However, that is the most expensive way to provide medical care. Giving access to routine checkups and tests to all citizens would be far more effective then the high cost of emergency rooms and hospital stays for the uninsured who have access to only expensive treatment and not inexpensive treatment.

Abuse of healthcare is greatly exaggerated

Republicans talk about people using healthcare like buying TVs and cars as a luxury. This is preposterous, people go to doctors to prevent and treat health issues. No one wants to go for entertainment. Maybe there will be a few who overuse the system, but the cost will be dwarfed by the savings of those who go for legitimate reasons and avoid the high emergency care costs.

The overall drag on our economy will go down

Everyone has coverage now, just many are not paying for it. There are those who can’t afford it who will reduce costs by using low cost preventative rather then high cost treatment. In addition, now as long as people are young and healthy they are less likely to pay for coverage using emergency service as essentially free insurance. By requiring everyone to pay for medical coverage throughout their lives, the cost is more evenly divided rather then people having no medical costs when they are younger and then being hit with excessive costs as they age or develop health issues.

From the medical establishment side, if anyone is abusing our medical industry now it is the wealthy who are getting unnecessary treatment for cosmetic or appearance reasons and excessive and unnecessary tests. The combination of the medical industry not providing effective treatment to the poor while providing excessive and unnecessary treatment to the wealthy can only be changed by government standardizing so all receive effective and necessary treatment.

In one way or another these costs come out of the economy whether they are taxes or simply the direction of private money. The arguments on taxes are irrelevant. What is important to society is the total cost, which will go down.

Morality is not just one way rules

Republicans want government to protect us by preventing us from using drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. If government is going to require us to be moral and healthy, what hypocrisy is it that government only requires that when it’s free to them. Providing basic access to health care is just as moral to the citizens as preventing unhealthy behavior and they can’t have it both ways based on if it costs them money or not.

We cannot allow private healthcare or treatment

If we allow private insurance or healthcare, then we will undo all the good a government program can provide. The best doctors and healthiest patients will simply leave the system. The drag on the economy will not be reduced as they just continue to perform unnecessary treatment.

Personal accountability does not apply

Some of you may ask about my libertarian views on personal freedom and personal responsibility. As with roads, sure, government makes mistakes but overall we have far more liberty by having great access to travel and this can only be performed by government. And there is no unequal access to roads based on taxes paid because that would just become so cumbersome and everyone would recognize and oppose the injustice of it.

Everyone needs access to preventative care. Treatment for illnesses are already covered, and in the most expensive way possible. No one chooses to be ill or to have a chronic disease and private insurers will never solve that problem. There is no choice, and therefore no personal choice in this. Holding those personally accountable by denying preventative care where they did not make a personal choice to be ill is simply in no way a libertarian concept.

I couldn't agree with you more, point by point.

I left my full message here crazyhorse to make this point. Wrote a long message saying nothing that I agreed with but presenting liberal ideology just for fun and you said you agree "point by point." I obviously get what liberals want to and what they think. The problem with it is that while I understand the objective their plan just doesn't lead in any way to the objective. I want to help my wife by emptying the dishwasher. If I'm a liberal, I decide my plan to accomplish that task is to throw my shoes out the window. The objective was noble, the plan was just stupid and had no chance at all in any way of working. Actually a liberal plan to empty the dishwasher would probably be to shake a can of coke and spray the dishes so she actually needs to wash them again. Then the liberal would spend the night crowing about what a great guy he was.

On the other hand, you tell me you're a PhD and how much smarter liberals are then everyone else. And yet you don't even grasp what a libertarian is, you argue against Republicans or anarchists. The anarchy is the funniest like when you keep threatening to beat me up because I'm an anarchist and I keep telling you in a libertarian system if you beat me up you'll fare a lot worse then in our current system. In our current system if you beat me up the victim is government. In a libertarian system the victim is me and you're going to be held accountable directly to me. And yet though I keep telling you that you keep repeating I'm an anarchist and you're going to beat me up.

So, dude, when I argue your views, you agree with me "point by point." You don't even grasp mine, never have once done so. So the question, how are you smarter then me again? How are liberals smarter then the rest of us? Empirical data once again proving liberals wrong.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kazoo and CH1 agreeing on an issue? Hell has officially frozen over

Don't worry, the temperature in hell is just fine.

[UK Skins Fan]

I'm sorry, can somebody please tell me what the hell you people are talking about?

Actually, please don't.

[welch]

I'm sorry, can somebody please tell me what the hell you people are talking about?

...an issue that was settled when Labour took office near the end of WW2. Same idea for universal health-care that FDR and Truman had:

- a government of the people ought to provide for proper health-care for all the people, since we all get sick

- the current American system works well if you don't get sick, or if you have a job with good health benefits.

- Nobody has any assurance that they will have a job in six months, or that their company, if they are working, will maintain a good health plan

- American health insurance companies exist by denying coverage. They do not "compete" for my business. They do not compete to provide better coverage.

- American health insurance companies compete for contracts from the companies for which we work. A company like GE penalizes itself if it provides good benefits.

- A contrast: American health insurance companies are responsible to their share-holders. There is no appeal. A public health insurance company would be responsible to people we elect. We could vote people out of office if they misbehaved.

That's a start.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- a government of the people ought to provide for proper health-care for all the people, since we all get sick

A government "of the people" should ensure opportunity, not provide handouts.

- the current American system works well if you don't get sick, or if you have a job with good health benefits.

Right. Government forces endless requirements on insurance companies driving up costs. Why can't a college boy buy a policy that covers nothing but accident or extreme illness? Government. Why can't a retired couple buy a policy that doesn't cover pregnancy? Why can't you buy a policy in Connecticut that doesn't cover hair transplants or in SF that doesn't cover sex change operations? Government. Why are pharmaceuticals so expensive? Government requirements and our ridiculous tort system. Why does a doctor start with a six figure annual expense of liability insurance? The same. Are you starting to see a glimmer of the first issue?

Nobody has any assurance that they will have a job in six months, or that their company, if they are working, will maintain a good health plan

Why can employees now owning their own plans so they can take them with them if they leave a company? Government. Why can't you look at policies in New Jersey to expand your choices if you're in New York? Government.

American health insurance companies exist by denying coverage.

Again with government regulations making it impossible to offer any coverage to people who have certain conditions. Why can't they at least provide coverage with limits? Why do they need to deny them completely? Government.

They do not "compete" for my business. They do not compete to provide better coverage.

This is bilch water. Of course they do. You've never shopped for insurance, have you? Try eInsurance for example.

- American health insurance companies compete for contracts from the companies for which we work. A company like GE penalizes itself if it provides good benefits.

Do they? Insurance isn't a factor for you? If you get an equivalent job for $1 a year more with all else equal except crappy insurance, you would take it? The insurance isn't a factor in recruitment? As a 12 year GE employee myself I know that in case the healthcare picture is more complicated by unions, and of course with that more government manipulation.

- A contrast: American health insurance companies are responsible to their share-holders. There is no appeal. A public health insurance company would be responsible to people we elect. We could vote people out of office if they misbehaved.

Actually insurance companies have contracts with their customers they need to honor. Other then government, you agree to pay a price for specific coverage.

And as for "voting them out of office" it's a lot easier to switch coverage in a free market then get a politician voted out by someone who's going to change anything. And the politicians are proposing to remove more choice. Your point is if you don't like the food in your hotel you don't want to walk down the street and pick from any of the other restaurants of your choice, you want government to shut down all the restaurants including your hotels and deliver you a meal. If you don't like the meal you can persuade everyone to vote them out of office and get new people in who will provide you with one meal you like better. Sure welch, that's a plan.

- That's a start.

A heavily skewed one with little in basis of fact, but a start none the less.

So welch, the current system isn't perfect and I'm not arguing it would be perfect if government stayed out of it. And we haven't even gone to the massive manipulation already of the industry through the liberty abomination called medicare. But the immediate and OBVIOUS issues right now caused by government. And you think turning the keys over to them is rational to even consider?