The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

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.

Talking politics is a surefire way to cool down these riled-up fans.

Jake wrote:Talking politics is a surefire way to cool down these riled-up fans.

Hopefully, talking Skins isn't very fun right now.

I was being sarcastic.

Jake wrote:I was being sarcastic.

That's too funny. I was referring to that compared to discussing the Skins you were right. Ironic you got your own sarcasm...

I'm surprised at you Kaz. I'd have figured you, among anybody, would be against such a thing.

So you want the Government to run all of our medical coverage? Will they do as good a job as they've done with Medicaid?

Here is an interesting rebuttal to Michael Moore's "Sicko"


20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (1/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4



20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (2/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W37Nkjp ... re=related



20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (3/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XsRzfckneg



20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (4/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGj4Ei9l ... re=related



20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (5/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlNtWy8T ... re=related



20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (6/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6QyTZs_ ... re=related

One of the pieces of the puzzle I have yet to hear about is DEDUCTIBLES. Most of us know you can have "health insurance," but what will it actually cover and how much will come out of your pocket for hospital visits? I can say "OH GREAT!!!! I HAVE INSURANCE...THANK YOU GOVERNMENT," but what if they failed to tell you there will be a $1,000 deductible on the treatment you need? If you are a poor person then you are still pretty much screwed. If they truly want health care reform, do away with deductibles as we pay for insurance and then pay again when we use the service. Technically, we are getting charged twice when we should only be charged once.

Kaz has apparently broken into his stock of Maker's Mark from his Louisville days.

Bob 0119 wrote:So you want the Government to run all of our medical coverage? Will they do as good a job as they've done with Medicaid?

Everything government does gives me the willies for sure. I want to have a military, but then both parties misuse it like in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do believe in government law enforcement but then we get intrusion into our lives like the War on Drugs and illegal wire taps. I support government roads but then we get government abuses in confiscating land for political reasons. Only government can mediate land ownership or water use but then they abuse that power. Yet not having government do those things would limit my liberty because whoever did do it would be more abusive.

Look at healthcare in this country. Again no one chooses to be sick or likes going to the doctor. This is not a question of personal accountability. And the money we spend on healtcare is growing uncontrollably. When people who need healthcare can't get it it drags down the economy and when those who have access to frivolous procedures abuse that it drains even more needed resources.

Keep in mind we would have all the same medical facilities, research centers, pharmaceutical companies and so on. It's just that we need to change the focus of our system to prevention first and treatment last, not cosmetic first and prevention out the window. For profit insurance will never solve that. They won't treat the poor, they won't take on pre-existing conditions. They will cater to unnecessary care for those who can afford it. All government would be doing is evening out the benefits so everyone has the access they need reducing the crushing impact of medical care on the country. Whether the cost is taxes or buried, it's in our economy and we need to address it.

Cappster wrote:One of the pieces of the puzzle I have yet to hear about is DEDUCTIBLES. Most of us know you can have "health insurance," but what will it actually cover and how much will come out of your pocket for hospital visits? I can say "OH GREAT!!!! I HAVE INSURANCE...THANK YOU GOVERNMENT," but what if they failed to tell you there will be a $1,000 deductible on the treatment you need? If you are a poor person then you are still pretty much screwed. If they truly want health care reform, do away with deductibles as we pay for insurance and then pay again when we use the service. Technically, we are getting charged twice when we should only be charged once.

I agree, there should be no deductibles. Any barrier to treatment undercuts the cost savings of effective prevention. Our economy can't afford having those limits to health care access.

Countertrey wrote:Kaz has apparently broken into his stock of Maker's Mark from his Louisville days.

That brings back the memories. Yes, I've spent many an afternoon doing nothing but sniffing markers into a stupor. And you're right, I did that when I was a kid too.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.

So let me see if I get this straight. You want to take your healthcare (and mine) and give the responsibilities for it over to the Government because you approve of their handling of the roads?

You say that this can't be handled by the free market, but it's the regulations that are causing the ridiculousness now. There isn't truly free competition among health insurance companies and in some states a single entity has a monopoly thanks to Govt regulation.

If Canandian Healthcare is so great, and the wait for health care is so short, than why are illegal "for profit" clinics popping up out there?

This solution of Govt run healthcare is like saying "we have so many homeless people out there, and everyone has a right to have a home, so now everyone is going to have to move into public housing."

You have to give up your house because it's more than what you need, and move into this smaller apartment. It's for the good of the collective. We can fit two families in your three bedroom one bath house.

If you grant the Govt power over your healthcare, do you think that's where it's going to end? They're just magnanimously going to treat everyone, no matter their condition or disease?

It opens up avenues for them to put an extra high tax on anything they deem "unhealthy." Look at your diet and find the things that you know could be considered unhealthy. It's not going to be just smokers and drinkers anymore. Think sugars, caffeine, red meat, anything fried. Why should it stop at food? Like to play sports? That's a pretty reckless way to handle a body that is being paid for by the taxpayers.

I can't believe you think the Govt could do a better job than the private sector. Give me an example of where the Govt, when it is in competition with the private sector has done a better job; Schools? No. Mail? No. Hell even with the military stationed in Iraq we were still turning to private companies for security. Somehow you believe that the Govt is going to do better with Healthcare? That's going to be the one thing they get right?

That's more naive than I would have given you credit for Kaz.

Bob 0119 wrote:So let me see if I get this straight. You want to take your healthcare (and mine) and give the responsibilities for it over to the Government because you approve of their handling of the roads?

You say that this can't be handled by the free market, but it's the regulations that are causing the ridiculousness now. There isn't truly free competition among health insurance companies and in some states a single entity has a monopoly thanks to Govt regulation.

If Canandian Healthcare is so great, and the wait for health care is so short, than why are illegal "for profit" clinics popping up out there?

This solution of Govt run healthcare is like saying "we have so many homeless people out there, and everyone has a right to have a home, so now everyone is going to have to move into public housing."

You have to give up your house because it's more than what you need, and move into this smaller apartment. It's for the good of the collective. We can fit two families in your three bedroom one bath house.

If you grant the Govt power over your healthcare, do you think that's where it's going to end? They're just magnanimously going to treat everyone, no matter their condition or disease?

It opens up avenues for them to put an extra high tax on anything they deem "unhealthy." Look at your diet and find the things that you know could be considered unhealthy. It's not going to be just smokers and drinkers anymore. Think sugars, caffeine, red meat, anything fried. Why should it stop at food? Like to play sports? That's a pretty reckless way to handle a body that is being paid for by the taxpayers.

I can't believe you think the Govt could do a better job than the private sector. Give me an example of where the Govt, when it is in competition with the private sector has done a better job; Schools? No. Mail? No. Hell even with the military stationed in Iraq we were still turning to private companies for security. Somehow you believe that the Govt is going to do better with Healthcare? That's going to be the one thing they get right?

That's more naive than I would have given you credit for Kaz.

Either you failed to understand the original post and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it's not relevant to the discussion), or you did understand it and chose to present a straw man argument and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it is not relevant to the discussion).

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.

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

If hell has frozen over, does this mean the Redskins will turn things around and we will win the super bowl this season?

cvillehog wrote:
Either you failed to understand the original post and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it's not relevant to the discussion), or you did understand it and chose to present a straw man argument and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it is not relevant to the discussion).

So let me see if I understand this response.

It's something to the effect of "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA"

I understood his argument totally. I also understand politicians.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We want to scrap our current healthcare system in exchange for a system more like Canada's or Great Britain's.

We want to do this in the name of the poor, and those with pre-existing conditions.

That's like saying there is a fire in the kitchen and the only solution is to drop a nuclear weapon on the house to put it out.

Turning to the Govt should be an absolute last resort...not a first option.

Currently the poor are covered under medicaid.

You want to drop the cost of healthcare, open the market up so that you can buy insurance across state lines. Competition drives prices. Current regulations inhibit competition and in some cases create a monopoly.

Allow co-ops to be created where a person can choose to either go with insurance offered by their employer or join with a group of private citizens to get a group rate (whichever is most cost effective or provides the preferred coverage for the individual).

Encourage the growth of "Cash only" clinics to handle minor injuries and illnesses that can keep their costs low by not dealing with the insurance companies (think $30 doctor visit)

Put limits on Wrongful Death and Malpractice lawsuit awards to bring down the costs of malpractice insurance (thus further reducing doctor's expenses).

Encourage Insurance companies to accept high risk, and pre-existing conditions by giving them tax breaks for doing so. Thus they can offset the higher cost of paying for their care without increasing the costs to the rest of their customers.

Encourage people to become more active in limiting their healthcare costs through HSA programs. Many insurance companies have seen that when an insured person sees how much money they have to spend, and does a little price shopping, they can reduce their costs by actually caring about how much their treatment will cost and choosing less expensive options.

But I guess all of this is just too hard. It's just easier to throw our hands up in the air and say "please Govt; save us!" and consequences be damned.

Maybe you look at your paycheck and say "gee, the Govt should really take more of my money. It's not really fair that I get to keep 70% of it" but when I see that I have no choice, and that I have no say, in how much is taken and what it is used for, the last thing I want is to give them an excuse to take more.

Bob 0119 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:
Either you failed to understand the original post and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it's not relevant to the discussion), or you did understand it and chose to present a straw man argument and therefore your argument can be ignored (because it is not relevant to the discussion).

So let me see if I understand this response.

It's something to the effect of "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA"

I understood his argument totally. I also understand politicians.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We want to scrap our current healthcare system in exchange for a system more like Canada's or Great Britain's.

We want to do this in the name of the poor, and those with pre-existing conditions.

That's like saying there is a fire in the kitchen and the only solution is to drop a nuclear weapon on the house to put it out.

Turning to the Govt should be an absolute last resort...not a first option.

Currently the poor are covered under medicaid.

You want to drop the cost of healthcare, open the market up so that you can buy insurance across state lines. Competition drives prices. Current regulations inhibit competition and in some cases create a monopoly.

Allow co-ops to be created where a person can choose to either go with insurance offered by their employer or join with a group of private citizens to get a group rate (whichever is most cost effective or provides the preferred coverage for the individual).

Encourage the growth of "Cash only" clinics to handle minor injuries and illnesses that can keep their costs low by not dealing with the insurance companies (think $30 doctor visit)

Put limits on Wrongful Death and Malpractice lawsuit awards to bring down the costs of malpractice insurance (thus further reducing doctor's expenses).

Encourage Insurance companies to accept high risk, and pre-existing conditions by giving them tax breaks for doing so. Thus they can offset the higher cost of paying for their care without increasing the costs to the rest of their customers.

Encourage people to become more active in limiting their healthcare costs through HSA programs. Many insurance companies have seen that when an insured person sees how much money they have to spend, and does a little price shopping, they can reduce their costs by actually caring about how much their treatment will cost and choosing less expensive options.

But I guess all of this is just too hard. It's just easier to throw our hands up in the air and say "please Govt; save us!" and consequences be damned.

Maybe you look at your paycheck and say "gee, the Govt should really take more of my money. It's not really fair that I get to keep 70% of it" but when I see that I have no choice, and that I have no say, in how much is taken and what it is used for, the last thing I want is to give them an excuse to take more.

Let me break it down a little for you:

Post A is about single-payer healthcare.

Post B is about government run clinics and hospitals.

Do you see how post A and B are having different conversations?

Post A wrote:
we need to go to a single payer medical system in this country where the single payer is the government.

The rest of his post, justifies this line.

When the government is the only one footing the bill. The only customer. Who would you think is going to set all the rest of the rules about healthcare?

How much a doctor is paid.

How much things cost.

Which doctors are approved.

What treatment is necessary and which is elective.

and most importantly; where they are going to get the money to pay for it all.

Don't let the name "Single Payer" fool you. It's a blind for "Government Run Healthcare."

Did you know that dental care is not covered by medicaid? There are no dentists out there that accept it. They "quit" because it wasn't worth it.

The Govt could have forced them to accept it (like they will regular doctors when/if they go to this "single payer" system) but they consider dentistry as "elective" i.e. "not necessary."

Why do you think the British are ridiculed so much about their teeth? Same thing. No dental coverage under their healthcare. Who needs teeth?

Bob 0119 wrote:

Post A wrote:
we need to go to a single payer medical system in this country where the single payer is the government.

The rest of his post, justifies this line.

When the government is the only one footing the bill. The only customer. Who would you think is going to set all the rest of the rules about healthcare?

How much a doctor is paid.

How much things cost.

Which doctors are approved.

What treatment is necessary and which is elective.

and most importantly; where they are going to get the money to pay for it all.

Don't let the name "Single Payer" fool you. It's a blind for "Government Run Healthcare."

Did you know that dental care is not covered by medicaid? There are no dentists out there that accept it. They "quit" because it wasn't worth it.

The Govt could have forced them to accept it (like they will regular doctors when/if they go to this "single payer" system) but they consider dentistry as "elective" i.e. "not necessary."

Why do you think the British are ridiculed so much about their teeth? Same thing. No dental coverage under their healthcare. Who needs teeth?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of single-payer health care and I am not going to try to explain it to you.

JansenFan wrote:If hell has frozen over, does this mean the Redskins will turn things around and we will win the super bowl this season?

The Redskins are in their own hell and need divine intervention to be able to pull that one off.

Bob 0119 wrote:Why do you think the British are ridiculed so much about their teeth? Same thing. No dental coverage under their healthcare. Who needs teeth?

I must admit I've never been aware of being ridiculed about my nation's teeth, apart from the occasional jibe on here. It must happen very quietly, and behind closed doors.

Actually, those on income support and others who meet certain criteria do receive free dental care over here. It's not easy to find a dentist who works through the NHS however - just as it's not easy to find a poor dentist who would qualify for free dental care. And that, of course, is because they can earn far greater rewards by working privately.

I try not to get involved in the wider debate about state healthcare, because the American psyche reacts in a very different way about such things - it's a circle that may never be squared. But I do find myself puzzled when Americans opposed to state care seem to pour scorn on the NHS. I'm immensely proud of the NHS and what it provides. The problem right now is that it is so vastly expensive because it provides treatments that should never be available through a service that is essentially a safety net - not an all inclusive service.

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.

Ignorance also kills, Ray.

Post A wrote: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.

While it is true that you cannot be refused by a hospital emergency room, that doesn’t stop the bill collectors from calling. That doesn’t stop the threatening letters. People who go to hospitals for routine illnesses and injuries generally do so out of ignorance of other available options. Many “health clinics” and “urgent care facilities” have opened in my area recently, and have become the preferred avenue for the uninsured. I count myself among the uninsured.

It’s not some sort of rocket science. When you pay out of pocket, you tend to care about “how much this is gonna cost me.” When you have insurance; what do you care how much it’s gonna cost, with the exception of “will I max out my benefits?”

That’s why the HSA programs have become the preferred way to go with employers. They make the employee think “how much is this gonna cost me” when they consider scheduling a doctor visit or seek treatment for illness or minor injury.

It’s when people think “well, I don’t have to worry about how much this doctor charges versus that one because they both accept my insurance” that costs to the insurance go up. When the insurance companies’ costs go up; their prices go up.

Post A wrote: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.

Actually, it’s understated. Most people don’t think twice about seeking less expensive medical treatment when they have basic HMO/PPO insurance. Their only concern is whether the doctor is in their network or not. They know the hospital ER is in their network, and it sure as hell beats accidentally going to a non-covered doctor.

Post A wrote:
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.

Currently the only people who don’t have health insurance coverage are the people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid assistance, and those deemed uninsurable by the insurance industry. So the real issue comes down to costs.

Who do you trust to lower costs more? Private companies or politicians? Sometimes Private Companies can be forced or encouraged by politicians to reduce costs, but once you start putting money directly into a politician’s budget, he’s not going to give it back.

Health insurance costs can be cut in many ways.

1) Reduce the costs to the doctors themselves. By putting limits on the awards for malpractice you can lessen their malpractice insurance, thus reducing their costs.

2) Lift current regulations that limit what health insurance can be purchased in an individual state. This would open up competition by allowing people to purchase health insurance from anywhere and not from just the short list of available carrier within their state.

3) Allow people the option of joining a co-op of private citizens to purchase insurance at a group rate. Then the individual can make a decision of what works best for them. Whether it be through their company, as a individual across state line or as a group with the co-op.

4) Offer tax incentives that would encourage insurance companies to accept high risk individuals or those with pre-existing conditions. These incentives could be used to offset the costs in a way that wouldn’t require them to increase costs to their other insureds.

5) Encourage the growth of “cash-only” clinics which would have an already reduced cost by not having to hire extra staff to deal with the health insurance companies. A large amount of money is wasted in keeping staff to submit and file paperwork in order to receive payment from the Health Insurance companies. When you eliminate that waste through non-emergency medical care clinics you start to see doctors visits in the range of $30-$50 instead of $200-$300.

6) Encourage the growth of HSA programs that put the responsibility of cost savings onto the consumer. The current model does not make cost a factor to the person receiving treatment, so nobody cares what it costs the insurance companies.

Any and all of these are better ideas than giving the government full access to your healthcare.

Post A wrote:
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.

I agree that there should be no such thing as a “crime of consent.” Drug use, prostitution and gambling are all laws where the victim is also the accused. What hypocrisy would it be now for me to say, “well, if drugs and hookers are illegal than I might as well give up the rest of my rights.

Once the government has a vested interest in your health, they have a say in what you do, what you eat, and how you take care of yourself.
Cigarettes and alcohol are already heavily taxed to “discourage” their consumption, but once the government is paying for your healthcare, than you can start adding any “unhealthy foods” to the list. Sugars, caffeine, fried foods, and whatever they determine to be a health risk (like eggs; are they or aren’t they healthy? Who knows?).

Post A wrote: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.

Public schools make an excellent comparison here. Would you say that public schools have the best teachers? Would you say that our public education system is the best? If that’s the case, why is there even a market for private education? Could you imagine the horrors of “No Child Left Behind” on a healthcare level?

Now certainly, the private sector isn’t putting public schools out of business, but if they were forced to compete (like they would in a voucher system) they know they would lose. That’s why the voucher system has been killed.

Post A wrote: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.

Comparing roads to healthcare is like comparing apples to the solar system. They don’t correlate, and one is far more complex than the other. My father used to tell me about an interstate highway he was on in Tennessee; he missed the “last exit” and drove down 10-miles of four lane interstate highway that ended in a giant round-about. The road simply dead-ended.

10 miles of paved four lane highway to go nowhere. Simply so that someone who didn’t know any better could turn around and drive back another 10-miles.

We don’t need the government to come in and save us from healthcare. Well, I take that back, we don’t need government to come in and take over healthcare. They do need to fix the existing model, but they need to do the hard work. Having them take over the system seems to be the only answer because it is the simplest answer.

…but it is still the wrong answer.