I just don't get the position that publicly funded healthcare is somehow "socialized" because our taxes would finance it.
Our taxes fund the public school system. No one calls it "socialized" school.
Our taxes fund the military. You can be damned sure no one calls it a "socialized" military.
Our taxes finance the police. No one says we have a "socialized" police force.
Saying that a publicly financed healthcare would be "socialism" is nothing more than partisan propaganda. It's dangerous, cynical,and irresponsible, partisan propaganda. It's clouding the real and important issue of health care reform with poorly conceived, jingoistic rhetoric.
I find the whole thing very disappointing.
Yes, but how do you really feel? Honestly, there are lots of people who do call the education system socialist because it is funded by tax money. Interestingly I have a neighbor down the street who supports single payer health care but is angry that his property taxes pay for my kids to go to school.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Yup, there is a lot of fear going on, from both sides. Fear is a powerful tool for everyone to use.
Indeed. I think a better description of the situation is that the current situation is untenable for too many to be an effective and efficient solution to the problem of ensuring basic, decent health coverage for the American people. It won't implode, it just won't improve unless we modify or fix what's wrong with it. However when you couch it in those terms and the opposition begins to claim that the changes proposed will result in grandparents being killed, then you don't have a debate, you have a situation where fear will trump reason.
Both sides need to agree to end the fearmongering and sit down at the table and discuss what works, what doesn't and what can be done to end up at a solution that everyone can agree is better than our current situation.
|
Just a little thing I had happen that I wanted to share....
My son needed tubes in his ears. A 15 minute procedure that cost me over $500 with my insurance because certain parts aren't covered like anesthesia and such. Overall the bill was $1300-1400 with insurance covering all but around $500. I received a bill statement that also listed what the procedure would have costed if I didn't have any health coverage and the price tag was just over $5000! So some poor dude with no coverage tries to help out his kid and gets f$!@ed over to the tune of $3700 for a simple procedure.
This is why universal coverage is a good idea to me, however when we see what universal coverage bills look like compared to private coverage bills (I am assuming that Unicoverage will be charged more because of Washington politics) then I would like to re-evaluate my thoughts. Universal coverage that jacks up a bill then only covers certain stuff may not be worth the effort.
"If we don't set up this new system, then the entire situation will explode! You have to accept our new set up and spend less time then people take to pick out a new car to look at the details or everything will explode!"
I think Pres has hit on a good point here. My biggst concern is that President Obama demanded that Congress take less time to completely recreae one-sixth of the U.S. economy and one of it most vital components then he took picking out a dog for his children. I the pln won't take effect until 2013 at the earliest, why do we need to be in such a rush to pass it? Let Congress and the American people hyave some time to look at and discuss th ideas. Maybe the is a better solution that we will not fnd if we are in such a big hurry.
The problem with Maddow is that she's a political hack like Olbermann, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Whatever she says you have to take with a grain of salt.I think it's a case of people fearing what they don't understand. That, and a TREMENDOUS amount of misinformation that's going around. It's hard to get correct info with all the bias in the media.The for-profit healthcare, medical, and pharmaceutical corporations have excellent lobbyests. Those lobbyests are not limited to working only the US government. With this much money on the line and so few government employees willing to put their necks out, most citizens of the US aren't getting enough facts to begin to properly puzzle this mess out.
For starters, see the Bill Moyers episodes for July 10th, 17th, and 31st: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/archives.php
(I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if someone already posted this)
Rachel Maddow, a journalist on MSNBC, did a great peice on the issue of socialized healthcare and misinformation and the lobby-ists and whatnot.
Yes, but I checked out what she said and it seems sound to me. So I trust it, as far as I trust anything on a cable news network.
Honestly, there are lots of people who do call the education system socialist because it is funded by tax money.
Well, I would like to meet one of them, because I've never met anyone who honestly held that opinion before. Where can I find one of these people?
Do they hang around at militia meetings with birthers & flat-earthers?
|
|
Over here in the UK we pay what's called National Insurance, which everyone who pays taxes does. That money is automatically taken out of your pay packet (along with income tax), and your employer also contributes some. The money raised through National Insurance is nominally saved for social benefits, such as your pension, and most importantly, the NHS. Only those who do not pay taxes do not contribute.As far as I can tell, an ideal US system should do these things.
1) Make it illegal not to have Health Insurance
2) Set up a public system of health insurance that anyone can join.
3) Set up a means tested system where if you cannot afford to join that public system, you can get up to 100% of it paid for you.I don't get the argument that public healthcare...
See this is interesting to me....
People are arguing about Medicare and Social Security being underfunded or not funded and going to implode, yet it seems to me that a Nation-wide healthcare system would (or should to be worth getting) incorporate all the single entities into one overall plan that is funded by taxes. Not a policy to be added to us in addition to keeping Medicare/Medicade and SSecurity.I haven't heard a big stir about the English killing off all their elderly or people dying in droves from lack of medicine. The streets of London are lined with dead, undermedicated elderly people. Oh wait, it isn't......
Frankly, the whole thing appears to be a calculated attempt to shut down the system by those unwilling to accept its outcome, which is the principal historical path to fascism. Voicing one's dissent == good; shouting down all opposing viewpoints == bad (not directed at you).
I agree, comparing your opponents to Nazis, th Ku Klux Klan, and calling them Unamerican because you disagree with what they are saying is calculated attempt to shut down the system. o istelling someone they are spreading vicious and malicious rumors when the read to you directly from the bill. Interestingly enough, in 2006 it was acceptable, even patriotic to go to town halls and shout down your opponents, as long as it was left wing protestors doing it.
They way I see the problem is that all the medical insurance corporations involved are publically-traded, and their primary motivation is to create greater profits (dividends to shareholders, drive up the stock price, pay for lobbying and upper upper manangment)... not to pay for medical treatments.
Profits are generated via paying out less money to the people who bought their insurance. Companies are punished on Wall Street when they pay out "too much" to their insured; some companies stock prices have dropped more than 20% in one day when their earnings aren't "high enough" by paying out to their insured. The corporate board is constantly looking to increase revenues, and that means more pressure every year to deny more treatments, pay or exclude more preventative care, label certain proven treatments as "experimental" and drop more insured. That means more uninsured & under-insured who seek treatment in emergency rooms. Who pays for these emergency room expenses when those treated can't? The taxpayer -- you and me.
A for-profit corporation should return at least a reasonable profit; I think most US citizens are fine with that. But these companies (nearly all insurance companies, not just medical) are reporting record profits at the cost of driving medical coverage constantly higher. At this point, the government should intervene to protect the taxpayers.
See this is interesting to me....
People are arguing about Medicare and Social Security being underfunded or not funded and going to implode, yet it seems to me that a Nation-wide healthcare system would (or should to be worth getting) incorporate all the single entities into one overall plan that is funded by taxes. Not a policy to be added to us in addition to keeping Medicare/Medicade and SSecurity.
I haven't heard a big stir about the English killing off all their elderly or people dying in droves from lack of medicine. The streets of London are lined with dead, undermedicated elderly people. Oh wait, it isn't......
Seen their teeth though?
Oh Doug, you didn't go there! Hee-hee! The edition wars and politics, together in two threads in two days! Braces for impact.
Again, the problem with your argument is you assume that rights only go one direction. There's no way you're going to be enslaved to build my house and your children starve, when they are protected by the same recognition of natural rights as I am.
Unfortunately, my right to liberty butts up against your right to a house. One of them has to give. They cannot both be rights. Either I am allowed to have my liberty, or you are allowed to have a house built.
By forcing me to pay taxes, you have taken my right to property away so that you can have property. If I resist taxation, my right to life will be eliminated.If there are only two of us, which one wins? The one with the bigger stick. That is why governments are created: to set up a codified set of rules so that one man's rights are not trampled by another.
As for the edition wars, I was just making a point about how contentious something as simple as a game edition causes people to have passionate debates. Throw in something like taking away someone's rights (yours or mine), and you've got the makings for a BanHammer Cake (TM).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
If this is the problem, then why don't we just adjust it. We do this with car insurance. Some drivers are considered such bad risks, that no insurance company would voluntarily insure them (at least without insanely high rates). So the state says, if you want to do business in this state, then you get up on a list and some of these drivers get sent to you to cover. You must do it, so must every other insurance company that wants to do business, thus the risk is spread out. So why not just address the issue directly?
Frankly, it could be a solution. It definitely should be on the table, and if it is rejected, it ought to be rejected for a good reason.
The main reason for developing a new system is because you're changing the entire goal of the system from profit maximization to health insurance. When you make that fundamental of a change, it is usually (not always) an easier system to start from the base up and design a new system. Though, I suspect democracy being what it is, the actual end product will be more of a cobbled on modification than an actual streamlined new system that is designed from day one to have health care as its goal. The American system does so hate to change.
Socialized medical insurance places an additional tax burden on citizens to pay for the coverage of others. I wish no ill toward most other people but I do not see your medical treatment as my responsibility. There is coverage available for nearly everyone. The fact that 80+% of people have insurance undermines the argument that there is a critical need to institute a taxpayer-funded system for those who can not pay. And, as has been pointed out, some of those who do not have medical insurance choose not to have it.
The 80% number is BS. The number of uninsured and significantly underinsured is staggering. Yay, I have insurance, but I'll never use it unless it is literally life-and-death if I have to pay thousands to cover the deductable and all the other things that are excluded.
Oh, you have good coverage? Congrats... for now. Insurance premiums and deductables continue to rise, causing more and more people and businesses to scale back coverage or drop it. Or is that what they mean when they throw around "__% choose to be uninsured."? Guess what, this means more and more end up getting emergency room treatment they cannot afford to pay for... but that's OK, cause the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Oh, you have good coverage and you receive treatment for some condition? Congrats... until they drop you. So you try to get insurance through someone else... oh wait, didn't you notice nearly all of the smaller insurance companies are getting bought up by the big players? Guess you have less choice. But you still try to get coverage... but, sorry, your pre-existing condition isn't covered. If your condition gets worse until it's life-or-death... you're in the emergency room with insurance you paid for that doesn't cover your condition.
I'm not saying I have any of the answers. But stop repeating the same old bullet points which have been repeated shown to be partially inaccurate or totally false.
Oh Doug, you didn't go there! Hee-hee! The edition wars and politics, together in two threads in two days! Braces for impact.
Again, the problem with your argument is you assume that rights only go one direction. There's no way you're going to be enslaved to build my house and your children starve, when they are protected by the same recognition of natural rights as I am.Unfortunately, my right to liberty butts up against your right to a house. One of them has to give. They cannot both be rights. Either I am allowed to have my liberty, or you are allowed to have a house built.
By forcing me to pay taxes, you have taken my right to property away so that you can have property. If I resist taxation, my right to life will be eliminated.If there are only two of us, which one wins? The one with the bigger stick. That is why governments are created: to set up a codified set of rules so that one man's rights are not trampled by another.
As for the edition wars, I was just making a point about how contentious something as simple as a game edition causes people to have passionate debates. Throw in something like taking away someone's rights (yours or mine), and you've got the makings for a BanHammer Cake (TM).
I don't think the argument that when two rights come into conflict, they can't both be rights, is not true to life. It's like saying because two goods come into conflict, they can't be goods. Of course rights come into conflict. As you say, that is why we have government, to adjudicate conflict. The question is, how to resolve conflicts so as to protect rights, and in some cases, determine which right trumps which and to what extent. By taxing you, the government isn't taking away your right to property, it is recognizing your right to property--they cannot tax what is not yours. Taxation doesn't take away all of your property, it just determines to what extent you are responsible for the common good by the property that you hold. Don't look at the common good as someone else's property, look at it is an extension of your own property, or the context in which you hold that property. Because my neighbor's kids aren't starving, they are tempted to steal from the baker where I buy my bread, effecting my supply and my prices. Because my neighbor is not displaced from his property, he isn't tempted to squat on mine. Because my neighbor is not disabled due to poor health care, he does not become a burden on me in a number of possible ways.
The 80% number is BS. The number of uninsured and significantly underinsured is staggering.
Actually, if you use the numbers that the White House and Congress are using, the number of uninsured and under insured is abot 15%. That means that the 80% number is actually low. According to the White House and Congress the number is 50 million, and according to the census departmant the U.S. popultion is aproximately 350 million.
Well, I would like to meet one of them, because I've never met anyone who honestly held that opinion before. Where can I find one of these people?
Do they hang around at militia meetings with birthers & flat-earthers?
Go to a retirement community. Seriously. Probably half of the people there believe they shouldn't be taxed, because they don't have children in school (or never did). The fact that our educations system is fundamental to maintaining the fiscal health of the entire society seems to be incidental.
Go to a retirement community. Seriously. Probably half of the people there believe they shouldn't be taxed, because they don't have children in school (or never did). The fact that our educations system is fundamental to maintaining the fiscal health of the entire society seems to be incidental.
That's right whippersnapper! I don't like paying for those little bastards! All they do is hang out on my lawn!
Just a quick threadjack - does anyone else have trouble viewing the latest posts on this thread?
I think all the Negative Energy being released here is giving the Post Monster indigestion.
Gary, I don't doubt for one minute that our system works better for those who can afford to use it. The point is, a growing number of our own citizens can't afford to use it.
And yes, there is a ton of fear-mongering going on (even in this very thread). "The government won't let you buy medicine! Old people will be euthanized!" Frankly, the whole thing appears to be a calculated attempt to shut down the system by those unwilling to accept its outcome, which is the principal historical path to fascism. Voicing one's dissent == good; shouting down all opposing viewpoints == bad (not directed at you).
There are many ways that we can do to cut costs and/or expand coverage without turning it over to the government. Private health accounts, tort reform, tax credits for the poor so they can buy health insurance, etc.. You have to remember that those countries that have single payer plans have smaller populations than we do. As inefficient as Washington is, having a single player plan in a country of 300,000,000 people is going to be a disaster.
Just a quick threadjack - does anyone else have trouble viewing the latest posts on this thread?
I think all the Negative Energy being released here is giving the Post Monster indigestion.
I read that the boards will be up and down for the next couple of days. PFRPG is giving it fits.
Reading the bill I came across this in little tidbit.
A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
Pay particular attention to subsection IV. It is clear why some people might think there is a so-called death panel.
Edit: Isn't the goal of a life sustaning order to sustain life? (bullet Point III)
|
|
There are many ways that we can do to cut costs and/or expand coverage without turning it over to the government. Private health accounts, tort reform, tax credits for the poor so they can buy health insurance, etc.. You have to remember that those countries that have single payer plans have smaller populations than we do. As inefficient as Washington is, having a single player plan in a country of 300,000,000 people is going to be a disaster.
The thing is, single payer plan must not necessarily means that it's the government being the single payer. It also mustn't mean socialized medicine.
And on the other hand, governmental health care mustn't mean single payer plan. (here in Germany, we have it in combination with private health care and there are quite some payers involved). And while we are not nearly as populated as the U.S., I don't think that there can't be a solution fitting the needs of U.S. citizens without relying wholly on the government. There's some middleground between the extremes.
The 50 million uninsured figure that gets touted is 16% of the population of 300 million.
Yes, that is the official figure that the White House, Congress, and everyone seems to offer, and while I'm sure that covers the uninsured, it doesn't cover the under-insured. Even if the number is only between 15%-16%, can the US really afford that many citizens who cannot afford basic healthcare?
The rest of your post is histronics.
That's why I started my first post at the thread beginning with a link to video episodes and transcripts that say it happens every day. I was over-the-top in presentation, but the facts that refute the misinformation are remain solid. Watch those video or read the transcripts.
I've stayed out of it so far, but one thing I should emphasize is that health insurance =/= access to affordable health care. I've got the best insurance possible through work; I pay Aetna something like $500/month, and my employer covers a good deal more beyond that. When I need health care, I go to my Primary Care Physician (because "going outside network" = "going bankrupt"), and then I get the care I need, and then I receive a letter from Aetna explaining why they aren't going to cover any of the costs at all. I appeal, document, exhaust every legal avenue, and they might agree to cover 10%.
United Healthcare was no better.
Having "excellent" or "premium" insurance in the U.S. simply means that someone will treat you. It does NOT mean that any of the costs will be covered. In fact, it ususally means that you're on your own, when it comes to paying for things.
There are many ways that we can do to cut costs and/or expand coverage without turning it over to the government. Private health accounts, tort reform, tax credits for the poor so they can buy health insurance, etc.. You have to remember that those countries that have single payer plans have smaller populations than we do. As inefficient as Washington is, having a single player plan in a country of 300,000,000 people is going to be a disaster.The thing is, single payer plan must not necessarily means that it's the government being the single payer. It also mustn't mean socialized medicine.
And on the other hand, governmental health care mustn't mean single payer plan. (here in Germany, we have it in combination with private health care and there are quite some payers involved). And while we are not nearly as populated as the U.S., I don't think that there can't be a solution fitting the needs of U.S. citizens without relying wholly on the government. There's some middleground between the extremes.
I agree. That might be the best solution. I'd like to keep our high quality care but yet have something for those who are in need of help. I don't want a system that encourages government rationing.
I've stayed out of it so far, but one thing I should emphasize is that health insurance =/= access to affordable health care. I've got the best insurance possible through work; I pay Aetna something like $500/month, and my employer covers a good deal more beyond that. When I need health care, I go to my Primary Care Physician (because "going outside network" = "going bankrupt"), and then I get the care I need, and then I receive a letter from Aetna explaining why they aren't going to cover any of the costs at all. I appeal, document, exhaust every legal avenue, and they might agree to cover 10%.
United Healthcare was no better.
Having "excellent" or "premium" insurance in the U.S. simply means that someone will treat you. It does NOT mean that any of the costs will be covered. In fact, it ususally means that you're on your own, when it comes to paying for things.
Sounds like your company needs to find a better insurer...I have none of these problems through my provider... and don't pay as much in premiums and I have a very resonable copay...do you live in California? Its my understanding that cost for insurance in California and other states with outrageous liberal ideals like it and New York. Here in the south where our roots are more conservative, the cost of living and dying is a lot cheaper, nor do most of our states here in the south have state income tax, ironicly the south is also weathering the bad economy much better than the heavily unionized and subsidized Blue states.... seems to me that these connections are not coincidental
Sounds like your company needs to find a better insurer...do you live in California? Its my understanding that cost for insurance in California and other states with outrageous liberal ideals like it and New York. Here in the south...
My employer switched to Aetna from United Healthcare, because of the extent to which they were ripping us off. Alas, Aetna is no better.
I live in Texas, where talk of socialized medicine is met with "stop trying to take away our freedom!" We're as conservative a state as there ever was. In Virginia (another red state), I luckily had government health care (I was a schoolteacher), and it was truly excellent. Before that, my experiences in "outrageous liberal" New York on private insurance were quite good, but across the border in Connecticut (an "outrageous liberal" blue state that Ann Coulter is from) I was denied insurance categorically. So I'm not convinced it's a red state/blue state, conservative/liberal thing... I think it's more of a "most insurance companies maximize profits by refusing to cover" thing.
But stop repeating the same old bullet points which have been repeated shown to be partially inaccurate or totally false.
But aren't you quoting the same old lines as well, I mean face it, both sides have invested propaganda into their arguements, its the nature of politics. You can't declare your sides propaganda as the "truth" without expecting the other side to do the same. You want truth, consult facts
California spent 4 Billion Dollars last year on public healthcare, now they are in the hole 8 billion, they aren't paying their teachers and state workers, they are writing IOU's for tax refunds and they are gonna have to raise the state income tax again (already one of the highest in the nation) to bail themselves out...and this is the model that Pelosi and Reed wanna use...sorry but I want Fiscal responsibility before I want anything like Governement Healthcare.
Also if you want examples of OUR government run healthcare check out the VA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and see how "efficient" and "concerned" our government is....
But stop repeating the same old bullet points which have been repeated shown to be partially inaccurate or totally false.
Are you talking to me? My point was that "sides" were irrelevant, and I failed to repeat much propaganda one way or the other.
I think the DragonSage had a quotes failure.
I don't think the argument that when two rights come into conflict, they can't both be rights, is not true to life. It's like saying because two goods come into conflict, they can't be goods. Of course rights come into conflict. As you say, that is why we have government, to adjudicate conflict. The question is, how to resolve conflicts so as to protect rights, and in some cases, determine which right trumps which and to what extent. By taxing you, the government isn't taking away your right to property, it is recognizing your right to property--they cannot tax what is not yours. Taxation doesn't take away all of your property, it just determines to what extent you are responsible for the common...
That's just it: your right to your life won't come into conflict with my right to my life. Your right to your property won't come into conflict with my right to my liberty.
If there is conflict (example: property vs property), that is what the courts are for. What does the contract say? Where are the property lines drawn?
One right cannot trump another right. Rights are equal things. My right to liberty cannot be trumped by your right to your property. If I steal from you, I have violated your right to property and my right to liberty will be violated as well (I'll be put in jail for stealing your stuff). But my right to my liberty doesn't give me the right to take something you're not using.
As for the government recognizing my right to property by taking it away from me through taxes, I think I'd like a bit less recognition. I can't continue to afford their generosity.
I would love to continue the conversation, but I would suggest checking out my blog (check my profile for the address). Lots of fun stuff there to get your blood boiling. I'm off to set up stuff at GenCon! Have a great weekend.
|
Reasons I'm against government run/provided healthcare:
1) I know many US military vets (I work in government contracting and my dad is a vet). I find it very telling that most of the vets I know would rather pay out of pocket for their own private insurance than partake of the government run/provided VA system they are entitled to.
2) Most government programs/system for which there is a privately provided alternative (postal service vs. UPS.FedEx, public vs. private education, etc.) are considered by the general public to be inferior to the private alternative. There's no evidence leading me to believe healthcare would be different (re: #1 above).
3) TennCare. TennCare was the state of Tennessee's implementation of Hillary Clinton's managed care model for universal healthcare. Launched in 1994, it was replaced by 2005 because: a) of fraud, b) it cost much more than initially anticipated, & c) the state had to absorb a huge amount of managed care risk (resulting in lawsuits).
4) We've almost reached a point in the US where 50% of the population pays taxes and the other 50% does not (by getting back what they've paid, and in some cases, more than they've paid in). This invalidates the "everyone pays for it with taxes" argument. Effectively, half the people are paying for all the people's healthcare.
5) I have an bad feeling that universal healthcare won't be available to all citizens. Instead, I think it will only be available to those citizens that the government has determined cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare out of pocket. Taking point #4 above, it seems very likely to me that the 50% paying taxes won't get the benefit of universal healthcare and instead told they make too much and can therefore afford to pay their own way. Effectively, that 50% will pay for something they can't benefit from. This is just another method of wealth redistribution.
6) For the last couple years, the current President, congressional democrats, and the media-at-large have harped repeatedly about how bad the economy is and how much dire financial doom the country is facing. If the economy is doing half as bad as they say it is, I can't imagine why it would be a good time to take on such an enormous financial liability. You don't get out of financial trouble by spending money like a drunken sailor.
7) The speed at which the President is trying to pass universal healthcare is troubling. If it's so vitally important to the country, then it's worth taking the time to explain it in detail to the public and it's worth taking time to debate thoroughly (instead of passing it through congress without debate).
8) Lastly, the federal government has no constitutional mandate for going into private business sectors with the intent (implied or explicit) of competing with private industry. Common defense, regulating commerce, and public works (roads, bridges, parks, and buildings) are one thing, the government as healthcare provider is something entirely different, at least in my mind.
This is all I have to say on the subject.
-Skeld
|
|
asked a question, and expressed an interest in hearing a non-partisan explanation of the issue.No doubt I'll be hated for what I am about to write, but so be it.
Why is government controlled health care wrong?
1) Our Constitution expressly limits the power of our Federal Government, and explicitly says if the power isn't listed, it belongs to the states/people. Some people believe that, despite government's best intentions, it does not have the power, as our Constitution is written, to control our health care.
2) Our government is currently $11,000,000,000,000 in debt. Unfunded liabilities (stuff that the government promised but has yet to pay on) reach over $75,000,000,000,000 over the next two generations. There is no money to pay for this plan, which means that care will have to be rationed somehow. Maybe that's eliminating pain medicine, or allowing those deemed too infirm to starve. Or . . . maybe this will be enforced by law?
3) Our government is trying to pass legislation to control a $2,000,000,000,000 sector of our economy in less time than our President took to choose a puppy for his daughters.
Unfortunately, our President and Congress haven't helped matters much by saying those exercising the freedom to speak their minds are "un-American." That tends to tick Americans off. Our government appears to be shoving legislation through, without appropriate debate, and the citizens are told, in effect, to suck it up, shut up, and be grateful we live in such a wonderful country.
I hope I've kept my reply nonpartisan. Hopefully, I've also enlightened you. I'll be at GenCon this weekend, so I fear I won't be able to reply to any comments. Nonetheless, thank you for asking an honest question in an honest manner.
That is what I am thinking. We look to these other countries with socilized medicine thinking, "That would be nice to have". Then we go about creating something like it without talking about how they funded it. It would be more interesting if they talk about how it will be paid for. The U.S. seems to run their funding like a yo-yo. When times are good, spend-a-lot and go into debt. When times are bad, cut programs and scratch heads borrowing to pay interest.
This country has become pathetically tied to boom and bust economy. You look at other countries with massive taxes and see a lot richer people because they somehow gave control to a government that actually was responsible and rational. Finland, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland come to mind.
Here we are living like serfs fearing the next sickness thinking the U.S. government will solve the problem. This is like turning to your heroine addict big brother, you never see, thinking he has all the answers.
I think getting universal healthcare implemented deserves more debate. However, I realize that is exactly what the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies want. They want this to drag on and stumble and stall and slow and peeter out. This is their game, divide and conquer. If you reason with it that way, they will win.
So I am divided by two screwed up systems. I think I rather move to Norway or secede from the U.S. and create a breakaway country that doesn't take crap.
Why all the heartache over "rationing"? Even our current private system rations ... it rations by the amount of money you have. If you don't have money to pay for the treatment you need, you've just been rationed out of getting it. If your position is that it is more proper to ration a person's healthcare according to their financial worth rather than through an (trying to find the most neutral terms I can here) egalitarian system then that is your opinion. But it seems fear-mongering over "rationing" is not good faith arguing.
The death panel thing is similar wankery; letting Medicare pay doctors to sit down and explain a person's options in re: to creating a Living Will is a great idea. Does no one in the US remember Terri Schiavo? Do you want to force your relatives to have to make decisions like whether or not to leave you on life support in case of an accident? Encouraging people to think about these things and plan accordingly is a good thing, and paying doctors to help by offering advice and providing information is a net boon.
Finally, while my own preference would be for a single-payer system (or even actual socialized medicine!) the current proposed healthcare reform does not create either. Instead, it reforms current healthcare insurance regulations so that insurance companies can no longer practice several of their methods that people in this thread have complained about (denying or dropping coverage, misleading on what is covered, etc). In addition to this, healthcare exchanges are proposed so that those without employer based healthcare can shop for individual care within a regulated competitive market. Finally a public option may be provided through those exchanges. Does this sound excessively radical or scary? No? Perhaps that is why much of the criticisms (death panels, forced euthanasia of elderly and disabled, etc) are outright lies aimed at arousing fear rather than points against the proposals actually on the table.
|
|
There are many ways that we can do to cut costs and/or expand coverage without turning it over to the government. Private health accounts, tort reform, tax credits for the poor so they can buy health insurance, etc.. You have to remember that those countries that have single payer plans have smaller populations than we do. As inefficient as Washington is, having a single player plan in a country of 300,000,000 people is going to be a disaster.The thing is, single payer plan must not necessarily means that it's the government being the single payer. It also mustn't mean socialized medicine.
And on the other hand, governmental health care mustn't mean single payer plan. (here in Germany, we have it in combination with private health care and there are quite some payers involved). And while we are not nearly as populated as the U.S., I don't think that there can't be a solution fitting the needs of U.S. citizens without relying wholly on the government. There's some middleground between the extremes.
I'm with you on this Wormy! I am moving to Germany. You guys build better cars anyway.
There's some middle ground between the extremes.
The hell there is! You're either with us, or you're against us! We all know Germany is part of the Axis -- and we know the Axis of Evil includes Iraq and North Korea and Al Qaida and Canada! That proves that Wormy is with the terrorists! Talking about "middle ground" is a Communist Islamo-Fascist plot to corrupt decent, hard-working Americans into socialist flip-floppers that have no values! He's trying to take away our freedom!
Sorry. Became a full Texan there for a second.
Sorry. Became a full Texan there for a second.
You need a shotgun in your hands when you're saying that in order to be considered a true Texan.
Does he have a "Don't mess with Texas" bumper sticker? That's gotta count for something ...
Keeps a watchful eye on thread, lest Texas be blasphemed.
Just remember, pardners, the eyes of Texas are upon you...
But he has an elaborate belt buckle. Isn't that worth half credit?Sorry. Became a full Texan there for a second.You need a shotgun in your hands when you're saying that in order to be considered a true Texan.
That would be 1/4th credit. You get another 1/4th credit if you have your name on the back of your belt(yes, Texans really do that).
Sorry. Became a full Texan there for a second.
To quote Jaws, "Never. You have to be born here."