# What   we may end up with is



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 20, 2010)

Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
The person in  need of care will have to pay out of pocket  and have to  file  for reimbursement  from the government.
 Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government  care programs due to low  and slow payments.

How is that for a health care  solution?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 20, 2010)

go get your proof that this will be how it works


----------



## Oddball (Mar 20, 2010)

The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.

Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.

Subsequently, the Stalinist tyrants pushing the current "reform" will once again bash the insurance companies for "price gouging", and use the failure of their "reform" as evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubmint needs to take over the whole kit and kaboodle to make it all "fair".

Make book on it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 20, 2010)

This is just the first step in a journey to oblivion.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
> The person in  need of care will have to pay out of pocket  and have to  file  for reimbursement  from the government.
> Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government  care programs due to low  and slow payments.
> 
> How is that for a health care  solution?



How it works - very roughly - is that I go to see my doctor and he gives me a bill.  My doctor is in a private clinic and the business doesn't "bulk bill", that is, it charges the AMA rate and not the Medicare rate.  I pay at the clinic and then I electronically claim on Medicare and the reimbursement goes into my bank account.  If I have a Health Card and am on concessions then I don't pay anything.  Some doctors will only charge the Medicare rate so people don't have to pay anything.  

I don't know about doctors refusing to treat patients in the manner you assert.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining.  Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.


----------



## Dante (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
> The person in  need of care will have to pay out of pocket  and have to  file  for reimbursement  from the government.
> Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government  care programs due to low  and slow payments.
> 
> How is that for a health care  solution?



I prefer Switzerland myself.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS


----------



## Dante (Mar 20, 2010)

Dude said:


> The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.
> 
> Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.
> 
> ...



the government will NOT own the hospitals or pay the doctor's a salary. Doctors will not be government employees. 

I do not see GOP leaders complaining about their government paid plans...which is what is really on teh table. Government paid plans.


----------



## Dante (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This is just the first step in a journey to oblivion.







http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Friends.jpg


----------



## sparky (Mar 20, 2010)

Australia.....?




now turn your head and cough.....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 20, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
> ...


We  can get to the things you dont know  later  lets deal  wtih, if you dont have the scratch to pay the bill?


----------



## Modbert (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> *We  can get to the things you dont know  later  *lets deal  wtih, if you dont have the scratch to pay the bill?



About Australia? He lives there you ignorant fool.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Mar 20, 2010)

When will they come to your house and tattoo that government easy pay number on your ass?  You know it's going to come along pretty soon.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 20, 2010)

After listening to President Obama's major speech every day this week, as much of the Congressional hearings as I could stand, and the talking heads on various news outlets, I am convinced:

1.  Nobody has a clue what's in that bill

2.  Everybody thinks it won't matter what is in the bill because its just for show to get something passed so the Congress can pretend that it authorizes them to do anything they damn well please.

3.  They are going to keep preaching a few good sounding components that they say is in the bill to lull the public into complacency.

4.  And they're banking on the public not remembering who to blame when it all hits the fan on down the road.

But I believe they have managed to buy, extort, blackmail, or bribe enough votes to just pass the legislation.  The last I heard, Obama has agreed to include amnesty for illegals to get the last votes, but I have not been able to confirm that.

Bottom line, they will quickly move on to another issue to get everybody off this subject, and in their minds. . . .


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 20, 2010)

Dude said:


> The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.
> 
> Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.
> 
> ...



They're pushing low-risk in the pool, also.  The theory is balance and overall better care, faster rather than waiting until one is very sick, moving the demand curve to the left.

Just sayin...


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 21, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
> The person in  need of care will have to pay out of pocket  and have to  file  for reimbursement  from the government.
> Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government  care programs due to low  and slow payments.
> 
> How is that for a health care  solution?



Do they not understand that some people either cannot or will not pay for government premiums nor health care ? What happens to people who can't or won't pay ?  A fine ?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> go get your proof that this will be how it works



stfu and go get your own damn proof that it won't work that way.. twatwhistle.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > go get your proof that this will be how it works
> ...



Willow, we had the opportunity to correct the system.  We did not. What did you think would happen other than what is happening today?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.
> ...


You're a willing useful idiot.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.
> 
> Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining.  Life could be far worse than that.
> 
> Let's move on.


Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 22, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



I do know that the previous federal government - conservative Howard government - fucked with Medicare here.  Just another reason I'm so glad they're not in power.  But even that ideologically driven fool didn't try to dismantle it.  

So, the evidence for non-treatment?


----------



## California Girl (Mar 22, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> go get your proof that this will be how it works



Is English not your first language? Because you don't seem to understand basic words like the difference between 'may' and 'will'. 

If English is your first language, you really, really need to improve your comprehension skills. Or even just upgrade your comprehension skill to 'beginner'.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.
> ...



Gee Dude, you must feel honored that Jokeyboy has deemed you to be correct. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy? I think I'd feel kinda dirty if Jokey ever agreed with me. Eeeeew.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



And you are just an idiot, period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.
> ...



Wah, wahhhhh............

It will work. And it will be amended until we have a true universal health care system, more than likely now, in my lifetime.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.
> ...



You are a homer for your side.  Watch insurance company stocks go up today as the companies figure to attract the 32mm going to be covered.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Why wouldn't they

A Complicated Enemy: Obama Seeks to Vilify Health Insurers, Give Them $336 Billion Check - The Note

Neither mentioned that the Senate health reform bill, which is the basis for Democrats' last best chance at comprehensive reform, would give the insurance companies millions of new customers required by law to buy health insurance. It would also require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of age, gender or pre-existing condition.

To help pay for the new insurance requirements the government would give to people money to buy insurance - $336 billion over the next ten years. That money, ultimately, would have to go to... drum roll... insurance companies.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


And you're a useless idiot.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts.  Dude is correct that the pool risk increases.  What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool.  Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically.  Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.
> ...



I hope with all my heart that you are wrong about that.  But my instincts tell me you are probably right.

The 'everybody pays equally' concept so that some pay less and some pay more as being somehow fair should be applied to everything.   You shoud pay as much for the insurance on your 10-year-old Ford Focus that you drive only to the park on Sunday afternoons as I pay for my brand new Hummer that I drive 50,000 miles a year and occasionally enter in a demolition derby.

For that matter you should have to pay much more for that Ford Focus so I could pay a whole lot less for my Hummer.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

But using the logic of some here, that's the way it ought to be.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > *We  can get to the things you dont know  later  *lets deal  wtih, if you dont have the scratch to pay the bill?
> ...



fitnah lives in Australia?

All the Aussies I have met are nicer than he is.  He must not be a native.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country.  However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit.  A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all.  But we need health care - both individually and collectively.  Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?

Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country.  However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit.  A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all.  But we need health care - both individually and collectively.  Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?
> 
> Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.



But why not?  Transportation can be essential for a person's livelihood and without it he could be destritute within a short period.

Food, water, shelter, clothing are all necessities of human life and yet all are sold as commodities on the open market.

So why should health care be any different?

If I am healthy and choose a healthy lifestyle and exercise prudence in all things and am willing to take my chances  and pay my own way for whatever healthcare I need, why should that not be my choice?

And if you chose an unhealthy lifestyle, are 100 pounds overweight with the resulting strain on heart, joints, and propensity for diabetes, etc., and/or engage in high risk activities, why should your choices be my responsibility to pay for?  According to some, it is appropriate for the government to require me to pay a great deal more so that you don't have to pay so much for health insurance despite the great disparity in who will need that insurance more.

I'm sorry, but while I care deeply for those who are sick and suffering and can't afford higher premiums for health care, and I would have had no problem at all if the government had chosen to focus on practical solutions for them and left the rest of us alone.   You can't tell me that the government couldn't have figured out some kind of fix for less than 10 to 15% of the population without taking control of all the rest of us.


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 22, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.
> ...


I'm right there with you.  It's always tough to think that elected officials would want to purposely damage the current system to get another one put in place, but i can't really see the other way around.  If you had the mandate but not the preexisting conditions or vice-versa but not both, then i would disagree.  But to me, this seems designed to try to overload the system to drive people away from private insurance to the point where the only other option becomes a single-payer system.

I'll end this post like i do most every other post these days.  Addressing who becomes the 3rd party payer of health care claims does extremely little to address the true cost of health care or health insurance.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Then, Some Guy, you do not believe in free market competition for customers that will inevitably drive down costs.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country.  However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit.  A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all.  But we need health care - both individually and collectively.  Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?
> 
> Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.



Dead on target there.

Education is another similiar commodity.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

How do you think medicine evolved?  People were paid for rendering a service.  It was an honorable and powerful position.  Some of the brightest and biggest risk takers expanded the frontiers of knowledge.

Now Obama wants to minimize the rewards of a career in medicine.  He wants to dictate what services get rendered, under what circumstances and at what cost.  Drive the innovators out of medicine and you will set back the world by decades of progress delayed.


----------



## JenyEliza (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.
> 
> Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.
> 
> ...



Dude nails it!


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 23, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country.  However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit.  A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all.  But we need health care - both individually and collectively.  Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?
> ...



Being destitute for lack of work is a terrible thing but it's another topic. 

Food, water, shelter, clothing, yes all necessities of human life and I think that in a modern society if someone doesn't have them then they should have them provided.  I mean basics.  I know you wouldn't argue that people should starve to death or die of thirst or exposure to the elements so I won't suggest that.  The difference is that I'm not arguing for caviar, champagne, an apartment on Park Avenue and a wardrobe from Paris for every individual.  So while the far from basics, perhaps I can call them luxuries, are definitely and rightly commodities in a free market/capitalist economy the basic needs for human existence are also definitely and rightly not commodities and will be made available to those who don't have the means to acquire them.

The &#8220;why should I pay&#8221; argument is fallacious.  People pay taxes, they may disagree with how those taxes are sometimes expended, eg the pacifist who is opposed to government funding the military, but since taxes are paid for non-specific reasons individual preferences can be ignored.  Even if &#8211; as in my country &#8211; there is a separate levy to pay for health care that argument is still defeated because genetics doesn't require an act of will.  

The point you make about higher premiums is still as a result of looking through the keyhole of private health care.  Insurance is simply a means of managing risk.  The average person in the US or any other country for that matter, probably couldn't afford to pay directly for some, in fact many, medical services.  Insurance bought by individuals is a way of affording those services.  Universal health care is just a different way of ensuring everyone gets access to health care as needed.  Insurance is simply an option, health care can and is provided without the necessity for risk management through insurance.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> How do you think medicine evolved?  People were paid for rendering a service.  It was an honorable and powerful position.  Some of the brightest and biggest risk takers expanded the frontiers of knowledge.
> 
> Now Obama wants to minimize the rewards of a career in medicine.  He wants to dictate what services get rendered, under what circumstances and at what cost.  Drive the innovators out of medicine and you will set back the world by decades of progress delayed.



No-one is arguing that people should work for no payment.  And as for innovators, you really need to read a bit of history and see how medical innovations took place.  And also in terms of public health gains it's trite but, I think it's true, that public works had a lot to do with promoting better public health.  One important discovery was the debunking of miasma theory for germ theory and the public works which reduced the chances of diseases such as cholera.  A medical scientist and an engineer in 19th Century London did more to reduce cholera than had been done in hundreds of years before, simply because of better knowledge.  It wasn't driven by a pharmaceutical company's research scientists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.
> ...



Horse nonsense for Dude and you.  First, where are the numbers and evidence that has happened in all of the industrialized countries that have any form of national health care?  Second, where there are one-payer schemes, where are the numbers and evidence those citizens pay more for less health care and die earlier?

Where are the facts?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2010)

The other countries made no pretense about it and went all in for socialized medical services, rather than this idiotic cramdown, not-at-all cleverly disguised as "insurance reform".

In socialized medical scams, gubmint pays less through rationing...."The people" couldn't pay for it if they wanted to.

Foo.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 23, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



Thats a straw man I said  





> Something that is not unlike what is evolving in Australia.
> The person in need of care will have to pay out of pocket and have to file for reimbursement from the government.
> Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government care programs due to low and slow payments.
> 
> How is that for a health care solution?



What is happening is the Doctors  are  dropping the bulk billing and demanding full payment up front   leaving  the  patients to seek reimbursement  according to there insurance schedule .

Now what  happens when you  dont have the money to pay up front?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



The AMA is advising its members to charge the AMA fee.  Medicare, the agency funded by the federal government, is prepared to pay a fee less than the AMA fee.  

Let me use some information from the Medicare site to make some points.  It's actually worth poking around in the site, it's got a lot of info.

Anyway:



> What does Medicare cover?
> 
> The benefits you receive from Medicare are based on a Schedule of fees set by the Australian Government. Doctors may choose to charge more than the Schedule fee. The Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) lists all the Medicare item numbers.





> Out-of-hospital services
> 
> Medicare provides benefits for:
> consultation fees for doctors, including specialists
> ...





> In-hospital services
> Public Patient
> 
> If you choose to be admitted as a public (Medicare) patient in a public hospital, you will receive treatment by doctors and specialists nominated by the hospital. You will not be charged for care and treatment, or after-care by the treating doctor.
> ...





> What's not covered by Medicare?
> 
> Medicare does not cover such things as:
> - private patient hospital costs (for example, theatre fees or accommodation)
> ...





> How do I pay my doctor?
> 
> Bulk billing
> 
> ...



We have to pay the gap between the AMA fee and the Schedule fee.  Private insurance doesn't cover it.  But as the excerpt points out, people who are on low incomes are usually bulk-billed.  If a medical business doesn't bulk bill then low income earners are free to find one that does 

All info available here - Medicare Australia


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 24, 2010)

Has Dr reimbursement faced any cuts?
At what % point  do all the doctor quit that system?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> The other countries made no pretense about it and went all in for socialized medical services, rather than this idiotic cramdown, not-at-all cleverly disguised as "insurance reform".
> 
> In socialized medical scams, gubmint pays less through rationing...."The people" couldn't pay for it if they wanted to.
> 
> Foo.



Dude, you are talking through your butt.  Where is the empirical data that supports your conclusion?  There isn't any such proof.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Has Dr reimbursement faced any cuts?
> At what % point  do all the doctor quit that system?



Usually the AMA ramps up the fees and the government and the AMA have a big blue about it and it settles down again and we all get on with it.  Doctors can stop public practice any time but they tend not to.  Even specialists such as surgeons will practice in both the public and the private sector.  One of our best plastic surgeons where I am works in public practice on cranio-maxillo whatever it's called and has a big private practice in purely cosmetic surgery which is not covered by Medicare.  

Don't get me wrong, the system isn't perfect and there are always problems with underfunding by governments who don't want to raise taxes but by and large the system is supported by the electorate.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Then, Some Guy, you do not believe in free market competition for customers that will inevitably drive down costs.



It will not be "free market competition" as the govt will control what they insurance companies can charge which will put them with a deficit that will cripple them. That added with the fact that 30+ million more getting HC benefits, the private run insurance companies are done for. When people think that something is free, studies show they use more of that something. 
When the private insurance companies fail, the govt will say "we gave them a chance and they just were greedy and failed", then the govt steps in with the public (govt) option. If you think that they can co-exist, consider this; the govt HC will not have to make a profit to survive as they will have our seemingly endless tax dollars and the private HC companies will not. This surely can not be considered "free market competition" by anyone.
What I can't understand is that with all the success stories of the free market working for many decades, granted their have been some failures, but for the most part successes, why would we opt for the govt to run something as important and our healthcare. An overwhelming majority of all govt run programs are soon to be broke and totally inefficient in administering services compared to free market businesses. Why so many think this will be different is beyond comprehension.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2010)

jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?



Don't know what jeffr thinks, but for me its not wanting the government to make decisions for me and my family AND that they are not very good at running anything.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?



For the  same reason  we dont have  government run breweries ,Its to important.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?



As I failed to get back to your last excellently argued post directed to me, let me address it here within this context.

It has been proved time and time again that nations are most likely to prosper who 1) respect human rights and 2) embrace a free market system.

Further the USA is nation founded on an ideal that had never before been put into practice on a large scale anywhere in the world.  That principle is that the people, not the government, would look to their own interests better than any government ever could.  The role of the government was to secure our rights, which would include access to free markets, and then leave the people alone to work out what sort of society they wished to live in.   Most Americans have a deep seated passion and instinct for freedom, and resent others presuming to govern them, especially on a scale as large as the USA.  

Even if we don't look at Canada's population being 1/10th of the USA--that is not an insignificant consideration--we can include Canada with many other experiments in socializatin of some or all government services.

Without exception socialism in part or in total has seemed to make things better for awhile.  Sometimes the people really like it.  Often they get thoroughly hooked on it and are unwilling to give up security for freedom.  But invariably socialism bogs down.  It cannot sustain itself.  As Maggie Thatcher once said, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money."  So the people lose more and more control of their own destiny and eventually economies bog down and stagnate as we see in much of Europe.

Canada may be getting there too re their universal healthcare if the rumors are accurate.



> It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. We cant afford a state monopoly on health care anymore, says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the (Canadian Taxpayers) federation. We have to examine private alternatives as well.


Canada: Socialized Medicine Going Broke? | America&#039;s North Shore Journal

Here in the USA Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all many hundreds of billions of dollars in debt.   With a track record like that, on what planet would informed people then think the government would do a better job with the rest of the healthcare system?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?
> ...



Government makes decisions for us all the time, you just don't realise it.  It's fine to have a personal ideology but I'm afraid it's irrelevant.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?
> ...



I could almost concede just on that 

But my point is that - sorry, broken record (young 'uns that refers to the old vinyl discs we used to play to make music) time again - health care shouldn't be a commodity in the free market, it's not like..................beer


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?
> ...



My turn to express appreciation of your post.  

_Further the USA is nation founded on an ideal that had never before been put into practice on a large scale anywhere in the world. That principle is that the people, not the government, would look to their own interests better than any government ever could. The role of the government was to secure our rights, which would include access to free markets, and then leave the people alone to work out what sort of society they wished to live in. Most Americans have a deep seated passion and instinct for freedom, and resent others presuming to govern them, especially on a scale as large as the USA.
_

I'm a bit tentative here in taking on these points.  But let me say that when an American informs me about American values I won't argue with them, logically it's uncontestable.  But that doesn't mean that the claims are valid of themselves, just that those values are held.

The USA's founding out of the British colonies was a first in so many ways and again I can't contest those claims because I agree with them.  While Europe was by far and away the most advanced society (if I can allege a continent has a &#8220;society&#8221 it's true that in governmental terms it was a bit patchy and hardly democratic.  But I need to make the point that many of the principles on which the Founding Fathers rested were know well before their implementation in the new nation.  The doctrine of the separation of powers is one of them.  But the new nation took those various ideas which appealed to its founders and implemented them and that is progress indeed.  And leaving folks alone was also a great idea.  I'm not sure but I would think until then the idea that people lived for the government was probably still strong in Europe, given its history of feudalism and near slavery of its peoples in that system.  

But sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy.  In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy.  I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care &#8211; the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens.  However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.

It has been a tendency for one side of the discussion to point to failings in health care systems.  The_ Daily Mail_ in the UK is a great source of stories about the horrors of the NHS.  And the distal cause of most of these incidents?  Underfunding.  

Yes, that's it, underfunding.  The mechanism is fine, the fuel to drive the mechanism is the problem behind these incidents.  Sometimes someone will argue that a surgeon taking out the wrong lung is due to &#8220;socialised health care&#8221;.  No it isn't, it's called incompetence and it occurs regardless of the provision mechanism.  

You have pointed to failings in the Canadian system (actually it's not a national system, it's provincially based and that might he one of the problems).  Some provincial governments are stubbornly opposed to a two-tier system.  I dsiagree with that.

It's good policy to have a two-tier system where those with cash or those who can afford insurance can get preferential treatment.  This is a good thing because it's the case that more people can afford to pay directly or via insurance than there are those who can't afford to do either.  That's a sort of crude utilitarian view but there is a benefit in that it reduces the load on the public system which allows the public system to be used by those who can't afford the private system.

In Canada some of the provinces have outlawed a two-tier system, I think Ontario is one of them.  That's short-sighted, even here in notoriously (well we think we  are) egalitarian Australia we have a two-tier system &#8211; sometimes pragmatism beats principle.

I'm addressing the general expression of disagreement now, not your points specifically Foxfyre.

Much of the popular opposition to Obama's healthcare reforms has been based on the values that have been discussed.  I'm afraid though it seems to me that those opponents have been blinded by mythology.  Now they are not alone, we all love to think of ourselves, our societies, in positive terms, expressing the social values that we learned as children, but sometimes they have to be set aside and we have to take a good hard look at our society without the comforting mythologies.  The US has a failed health care system when it's examined objectively.  If you're wealthy or insured you're okay, if you're neither than you're not okay.  But you should be.  No-one in a civilised society should be denied health care simply because they can't afford to pay for it.  That's the sentiment that underpins my position that a form of universal health care - hybrid models included - is necessary for any society.  I keep making the point that the free market is fine for commodities but not for essentials such as health care but the ideology of the free market is strongly held in the US and that ideology is what drives opposition to the reforms.  I'm arguing to dump the ideology, it doesn't make sense in terms of public health policy.

The vested interests have marshalled opposition to the reforms by playing on Americans' basic values.  To me that's tantamount to propagandising of the worst type.  I'm always a bit annoyed when, in a political discussion the Trots bang on about the "false consciousness of the working class".  I agree with them that it does exist but I hate the bloody patronising attitude they evince about it.  But at the risk of being accused of patronising the opposition in this discussion there is a false consciousness at work where the vested interests have disguised their real motives for opposing the reforms.  Instead of admitting naked economic self-interest they have grabbed the flag to cover up those real motives and many Americans have been conned.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 25, 2010)

When it comes to understanding people.  I'm inclined to think the rich and powerful have a better view of the whole picture than the poor and unempowered.  Many people have struggled and met challenges while rising to the heights of power and money.  Few of the poor can truly say the same about how to deal with having power and money.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?



Because the free market works when it is actually free and not govt mandated or govt interfered. Do you really have confidence in the govt to run your healthcare? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest in mind; I know you don't think the free market does but want to know your opinion on politicians taking control.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 26, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> When it comes to understanding people.  I'm inclined to think the rich and powerful have a better view of the whole picture than the poor and unempowered.  Many people have struggled and met challenges while rising to the heights of power and money.  Few of the poor can truly say the same about how to deal with having power and money.



You really have swallowed it haven't you?

Think about it.  How did people first get wealthy?  Then think about how their children got wealthy?  Then think how THEIR children got wealthy.  

You know the problem here?  Americans, bless 'em, don't understand how the class system works.  The Brits know because they've lived with it for thousands of years.  Americans with the facade of an egalitarian society getting in the way simply don't understand how social stratification works.  

The rich and powerful only give a fuck about the rich and powerful.  Remember Bush and his base of the "haves and have-mores"?  The rich and powerful - throughout history - have worked hard to ensure they remain rich and powerful.  

Now I'll wait for the usual nyah-nyah attacks of, "you're just envious".

Be my guest.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 26, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?
> ...



The free market is fine where it is appropriate.  And where it is appropriate is where the twin laws of demand and supply can work to ensure that there is equilibrium.  My contention is that the mechanism of demand and supply should not be used in the provision of health care because while health care has a cost, it shouldn't have a price.  Having a price means that it must be purchased, if someone can't purchase it then they don't get it.  And I don't think that should be the case.

Do I have confidence in the government to run health care?  Yes I do.  Why?  Because they run everything else pretty well.  I know that will be anathema to those who fondly cling to the idea that government is bad or incompetent or to be feared but really there's no evidence for that, it's a form of mythology that must be dispensed with.  

Politicians, like everyone else, have their own best interests in mind at any time. Why do you think so many of them are trying to bring down the Obama health reforms?


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 26, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to understanding people.  I'm inclined to think the rich and powerful have a better view of the whole picture than the poor and unempowered.  Many people have struggled and met challenges while rising to the heights of power and money.  Few of the poor can truly say the same about how to deal with having power and money.
> ...



Since I'm your "guest".  Americans have the equalizer of the voting booth.  Fortunes have been made and lost here.  There is no guarantee of future wealth just because a prior generation did so.  An interesting point here is Democrats seem to have families like the Rockefellers and Kennedys which fit your profile.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 26, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'm always polite to my guests 

Yes, dynasties reproduce, it's just that some of them are a bit more cunning in hiding their avarice


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> . . . sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy.  In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy.  I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care  the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens.  However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.
> 
> It has been a tendency for one side of the discussion to point to failings in health care systems.  The_ Daily Mail_ in the UK is a great source of stories about the horrors of the NHS.  And the distal cause of most of these incidents?  Underfunding.
> 
> ...



I tried to rep you for your comments here and kudos for a most competent argument.  Alas, the game says I still have spread some rep, so I'll get back to you on that.  

I don't think the American passion for individual liberties is based on ideology as much as it is based on what we believe to be an inate yearning of humankind for freedom.  We were just the first country to embrace a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and it has worked.   And though circumstances change, climate changes, the boundaries defining nations change, culture changes, etc. the core principles those freedoms are based on remain constant.

Having said that, I  think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think that access to healthcare should be available to everybody.   I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think a moral society takes care of the helpless and most unfortunate among us.

The argument comes into whether it is the people will assign that responsibility to themselves or whether they will make it a prerogative of government along with the powers to implement it.

We are already seeing the consequences of allowing government such power.  We are witnessing the waste, the deception, the corruption, the graft, and the self-serving power and benefit grabs that are the result of a government with too much power.  For instance, those staffers who wrote the clause requiring all other Americans to adhere to the rules and regulations mandated for the people exempted themselves from those rules and regulations and ensured themselves the cadillac plans enjoyed by the President and Congress.

We are witnessing the authorization of 152 new bureaucracies and boards to implement the new plan and tens of thousands of new government jobs, all that will be paid for by the taxpayer even as more federalizing of non related items buried in the bill kill tens of thousands more private sector jobs.

And we are witnessing deception re the cost being fed to the unaware and gullible.  It will be no time at all that we will be like Ontario with 85% of the national budget swallowed up by this growing monstrosity.  As Thomas Sowell noted a couple of days ago, once the government has our medical records and the power to tell us what healthcare we or our loved ones will be allowed to have, who would dare oppose them and be at risk of retaliation?

It is not the concept of making healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans that is at issue at here.

It is the principle of individual freedom and the process that is at issue.

The process other places may be better.

The process here so far sucks big time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 26, 2010)

Foxfyre, we are witnessing this because the private industry failed miserably to address the problem.  Instead it was off galloping after obscene profit.  The Dems saw the golden opportunity and took it.

Nothing the Pubs can do can rectify this reality.  We are not going to repeal or replace.  However, the Pubs and the Dems can reform.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre, we are witnessing this because the private industry failed miserably to address the problem.  Instead it was off galloping after obscene profit.  The Dems saw the golden opportunity and took it.
> 
> Nothing the Pubs can do can rectify this reality.  We are not going to repeal or replace.  However, the Pubs and the Dems can reform.



Private industry was doing just fine until government got involved in the first place.  And the more government got invoved, the more it all went to hell in a hand basket.  And just as throwing more money at problems that money has not solved in the past is likely to solve problems now, more government is not the answer to reforming healthcare in this country.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 26, 2010)

Simply far right corporatist talking points, foxfyre.  From tainted meat to bad drugs to terrible working conditions to whatever, industry has never policed itself properly in relationship to the consumers they serve.  Business brought it on by itself, nothing else.  Insurance companies could have changed the ways things were done anytime.

They did not do so, and nothing (absolutely nothing) can excuse the industry's abysmal failure to police itself.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2010)

The function of government should be to secure our rights, Jake, and if that involves regulation to keep industry from violating our rights, then that regulation is a valid function of government.

The function of government is not to take the place of industry.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 26, 2010)

Most _*real*_ republicans would already know that.

That oughta tell you somenting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 26, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> The function of government should be to secure our rights, Jake, and if that involves regulation to keep industry from violating our rights, then that regulation is a valid function of government.
> 
> The function of government is not to take the place of industry.



If industry is abusing its consumers and protecting our society (an health is a national treasure), then of course govt should step in.

Business brought this on.  Nothing else.  'Cause if it were doing its job well, then none of this would have happened.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Most _*real*_ republicans would already know that.
> 
> That oughta tell you somenting.



Well there are a few RINOs who would make much better Democrats than Republicans, and a few imposters that I would dearly like to bounce right out of Washington. The only reason some of those folks are still Republican is because the Democrat Party has steered too far left even for them.

Why Jake pretends to be a Republican, I can only surmise that it is an attention-grabbing gimmick, because as bad as some of them are, I don't know ANY Republicans who are as pro-big government and anti-American as that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 26, 2010)

ff, much of the party had room for dissent and discussion before 1980, when the whacko wing went to work in wiggling its way into the mainstream of Republicanism.  What an unmitigated disaster since then.  And truly I don't care at all what you think about me and the GOP: you are irrelevant to that.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 26, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



In response to what I bolded from your response first:
They don't run everything else pretty well. The post office is on the verge of collapse with billions of dollars of debt Post office ends 2008 with $2.8 billion debt - The Daily Breeze
 the lines/waits for most govt agencies are extremely long and they are woefully inefficient (DMV, SS office and etc)
Social Security this year paid out more than it took in: The Associated Press: Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam&#39;s IOUs.
Medicare in the beginning estimated the cost at 9 billion by the year 1990 but was actually at 67 billion. Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Name one govt agency that "runs pretty well" compared to a private entity doing the same. As an example UPS verses the PO.

If private businesses were run like this, they would be out of business but because the govt has a seemingly endless money supply (tax dollars), and do not have to make a profit to stay in business, their life span is limitless.

Your statement on politicians seems to only address the opposition to HC, while I stated that both sides are equally as power hungry. Do you disagree?

Last point is that if you mark everything that makes a profit as bad if it supplies something people need, where would you put the grocery business, electric companies, gas companies and etc. Should they be govt run also? You do realize that the profits for the health corps does not even rank in the top 50. They are around 3%. The govt mandates were a big factor in the high cost of HC, ie; why does a 60 year old woman have to have to purchase insurance with maternity coverage. Mandates by the govt!

The main problem with the HC legislation is that it does not address most of the problems that causes the high costs such as hospital charges, charges for tests, pharmaceuticals (the govt cut a sweetheart deal with them months ago) The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 27, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > . . . sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy.  In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy.  I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care &#8211; the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens.  However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.
> ...



Agreed on your point about the US and its spirit of freed.  And that allows me to re-think my position.  Having done so then it seems to me that the concept of &#8220;freedom&#8221; is being used as a propaganda weapon against a perfectly reasonable public policy that doesn't in fact deny freedom, in fact it guarantees freedom, freedom from fear of financial destruction due to ill health.

_Having said that, I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think that access to healthcare should be available to everybody. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think a moral society takes care of the helpless and most unfortunate among us._

Point taken.

_The argument comes into whether it is the people will assign that responsibility to themselves or whether they will make it a prerogative of government along with the powers to implement it.
_
And this goes to the apparently troubled relationship between the people and government.  In your previous comment you said, We were just the first country to embrace a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and it has worked.  Is it now broken?

_We are already seeing the consequences of allowing government such power. We are witnessing the waste, the deception, the corruption, the graft, and the self-serving power and benefit grabs that are the result of a government with too much power. For instance, those staffers who wrote the clause requiring all other Americans to adhere to the rules and regulations mandated for the people exempted themselves from those rules and regulations and ensured themselves the cadillac plans enjoyed by the President and Congress._

That's not the fault of &#8220;government&#8221;, it's a problem with the body politic.  

_We are witnessing the authorization of 152 new bureaucracies and boards to implement the new plan and tens of thousands of new government jobs, all that will be paid for by the taxpayer even as more federalizing of non related items buried in the bill kill tens of thousands more private sector jobs._

I must admit I still can't believe you put up with the legislature being able to corrupt bills.

_And we are witnessing deception re the cost being fed to the unaware and gullible. It will be no time at all that we will be like Ontario with 85% of the national budget swallowed up by this growing monstrosity. As Thomas Sowell noted a couple of days ago, once the government has our medical records and the power to tell us what healthcare we or our loved ones will be allowed to have, who would dare oppose them and be at risk of retaliation?_

Is that going to happen?  If it is then something is wrong with it and it needs to be corrected.  But is it any different to insurance companies doing the same?  

_It is not the concept of making healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans that is at issue at here.

It is the principle of individual freedom and the process that is at issue.

The process other places may be better.

The process here so far sucks big time._

The process can be fixed but to be fixed first it has to be accepted in principle.  If the rejection is simply on the grounds of &#8220;individual freedom&#8221; being violated then that takes me back to my first point about propaganda.

If it can be proven that "freedom" in fact isn't being violated by this policy, will that reduce the opposition?  Or is that emotional appeal going to be used by the vested interests to oppose what is really a fairly moderate public policy?  It would be a bit sad if that were the case.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 27, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



_In response to what I bolded from your response first:
They don't run everything else pretty well. The post office is on the verge of collapse with billions of dollars of debt Post office ends 2008 with $2.8 billion debt - The Daily Breeze
the lines/waits for most govt agencies are extremely long and they are woefully inefficient (DMV, SS office and etc)
_
Do you have a lot of private competitors up against your federal postal service?

DMV is state right?  Easy fixed, why queue when you can do things online?  It used to be like that here too, hell of a pain in the arse, now I register my car online and can do just about anything except renew my driver's licence online (bastards like taking crappy photos of my ugly mug &#8211; well serves them right)

_Social Security this year paid out more than it took in: The Associated Press: Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs.
Medicare in the beginning estimated the cost at 9 billion by the year 1990 but was actually at 67 billion. Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Name one govt agency that "runs pretty well" compared to a private entity doing the same. As an example UPS verses the PO._

How about I address UPS v PO first?  How is the PO funded?  Fixed budget?  Or is it permitted to get out there and compete against UPS without any restrictions whatsoever?  How about this &#8211; remove the PO and watch what happens to prices of retail postal services.  Do you think that perhaps the PO even existing in the first place means its competitors are somewhat inhibited from going for broke in terms of pricing?


_If private businesses were run like this, they would be out of business but because the govt has a seemingly endless money supply (tax dollars), and do not have to make a profit to stay in business, their life span is limitless._

 Some of the problems your government departments have are caused by under-funding.  They are under-funded because politicians are reluctant to raise taxes.  Unlike a government department which is funded from tax which is set by politicians who are elected, companies can issue stocks and raise capital in various means while taking advantage of the ability to invest money elsewhere to get returns which can then be put back into the business.  Government departments can't do this so they suffer in terms of efficiency due to chronic under-funding.  However no doubt you will be happy to know that the Defense Department is not so stricken.  And while the private sector is trying to muscle in on the DD's work I don't think the private ones will ever be able to do what the military forces do.  


_Your statement on politicians seems to only address the opposition to HC, while I stated that both sides are equally as power hungry. Do you disagree?
_
The motivations of political parties and politicians themselves are myriad.  

_Last point is that if you mark everything that makes a profit as bad if it supplies something people need, where would you put the grocery business, electric companies, gas companies and etc. Should they be govt run also? You do realize that the profits for the health corps does not even rank in the top 50. They are around 3%. The govt mandates were a big factor in the high cost of HC, ie; why does a 60 year old woman have to have to purchase insurance with maternity coverage. Mandates by the govt!_

Let me give you a personal story, if I may.  Back in the early 1980s I went on a campervan trip around Europe.  Big adventure.  Some of the places I visited were the then Czechoslovakia (Stalinist),  Hungary (market socialist) and Yugoslavia (Titoist).  Czechoslovakia was like being in a Cold War movie with the script written by Le Carre; Hungary was much more relaxed and had more of a consumer society; Yugoslavia was somewhere in between.  But in Yugoslavia I got trapped in the aftermath of a dispute the fed government was having with its oil suppliers and everyone was on ration cards for fuel.  I crossed from Macedonia (south of Skopje) into northern Greece (near Thessaloniki) and the first thing I saw as I crossed at night in Greece was a bloody big Mobil sign.  

I have no problems with businesses making a profit, trust me.  


_The main problem with the HC legislation is that it does not address most of the problems that causes the high costs such as hospital charges, charges for tests, pharmaceuticals (the govt cut a sweetheart deal with them months ago) The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan &#8211; Salon.com_

Point taken but maybe this is the best they can do.  Perhaps if the opposition wasn't befuddling the issues with propaganda then Americans could be permitted to see the issues a little more clearly and could work for a better system than exists now or is currently on offer.  That's my beef, the bullshit bluster is working and it's hurting you.  You're damn right that cosying up between big corporations and government is anti-democratic, it happens in my country too and I'm not too bloody happy about it.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 27, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



Government runs everything else pretty well?  Just what are your standards?  You might want to consider how the following agencies are run:

USPS
Amtrak
VA
Medicare (annual fraud totals)
FEMA
Immigration
Dept. of Education


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 27, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



As opposed to:

Enron
Worldcom
Lehman Brothers
Arthur Andersen

...................

Need I go on?

The GFC wasn't started by governments.  

And have you seen anyone run a war as well as the Defense Department?

Blackwater or XYZ or whatever they call themselves nowadays wouldn't hold a bloody candle to DD.

Horses for courses.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



Enron et al was a signal that there needed to be stricter regulation of how companies treated and secured their employees' retirement funds.  That falls under the banner of government securing our rights.   The best solution for that situation, however, is for the employee and only the employee having possession and control of his own retirement account.   Freedom.  Liberty.  If that had been the case, then there would have been no problem, other than temporary unemployment, for the employees when a company folded.

There will always be bad people however and there are already laws in place applying serious consequences to those who use their business to cheat or deceive people.  The answer to that is strict enforcement of the law and not the government taking over the business.

Our government has Constitutional authority and responsibility to provide for the common defense so that is a legitimate function of government.  And also in the interest of promoting the general welfare and common defense, it is also a Constitutional obligation of the federal government to keep communications open to all the people, so government operation of the post office is also a valid function even though private mail and package delivery services are generally far more efficient and less costly.

The bottom line is that a big, intrusive, all powerful, unwieldly, bloated, and inefficent bureaucratic government is not going to run much of anything as economically or effectively as can be done by he private sector, and there are very few programs run by the federal government that do not erode the freedoms, opportunities, options, and choices available to the people not even mentioning their pocketbooks.

That is why conservatives don't want the government doing much of anything that can be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector.  And that would include healthcare.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 27, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



I claim the debate point as you totally abandoned your defense of government agencies.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I claim the debate point as you totally abandoned your defense of government agencies.



And the judge would give you the point too, as throwing in a list of corporations within that context was at best non sequitur; at worst blatant red herring AND straw man.


----------



## jdavij2003 (Mar 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Yet another useful idiot.
> 
> When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.
> 
> The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.



The point you are making is intriguing.  Could you elaborate?


----------



## jdavij2003 (Mar 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Wah, wahhhhh............
> 
> It will work. And it will be amended until we have a true universal health care system, more than likely now, in my lifetime.



How can you be sure that "It will work"?  And why are you okay with our government signing a bill that is in no way perfect into law?  This law is the equivalent of putting a bandage on a severed artery.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 27, 2010)

jdavij2003 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another useful idiot.
> ...



For me, it means the socialist crowd plans on health care reform failing, so they can move to universal health care.  They will point to too many people opting to pay the fine instead of getting coverage.

Why would someone choose not to have coverage?  A young male with no known health problems may find paying a $750 fine preferable to paying $2,000/year for a policy.  He is probably a pretty low risk.  A 55 year old obese male smoker with high blood pressure and borderline blood sugar issues might see a policy as attractive at $2,500/yr, since he would have had to pay $750 anyways.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 28, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> jdavij2003 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Obama is on the record as wanting a single payer system which would effectively put all the private insurors out of business.  And I believe that is the goal, and, if the Democrats remain in power after November, I believe we will see that in 2011.

Here's one example when Candidate Clinton was addressing union bosses:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance[/ame]


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



But the point is that the private sector cant be trusted to be above board either.  Sometimes government has to be the one to do certain things, thats my point.  Many things cant be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector and where that happens government must step in.  For other things the private sector is fine ; particularly where there are no monopolies.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 28, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Aw you're not going to claim and then leave the thread are you?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I claim the debate point as you totally abandoned your defense of government agencies.
> ...



Not all Fox 

As I said, some things are best done by government, some are best done by the private sector and there are governance issues in both.  

Somewhere in this thread the topic veered off into the usual anti-government stuff that is plainly not proveable either way.  It's all opinion.  Hence my chucking in the fact that criminality in the private sector can destroy companies which then can't deliver the goods 
or services they may be contracted to deliver, which leaves people without them.  So my point is that the payment for health care is best made through a government agency rather than the private sector.  The running off into government bad/inefficient/ineffective - private sector good/inefficient/ineffective is simply a display of prejudices.


----------



## germanguy (Mar 28, 2010)

Hi,

reading this, one or two thoughts crossed my mind:

1. There are free markets with competition and there are fields of business, where there is a kind of "natural monopole".
Good example might be electricity and water supply.
We all need it - period.
And we can not really choose, in what quantity or quality we would like to have it. And we are rather restricted to change the supplier (at least compared to other goods we buy in supermarkets).

2. Healthcare is something inbetween. We can live without seeing and paying for a doctor, but at least once in our lifetime, we will need one. 
We are nearly unable to decide to save the money for the heart - pills and buy a nice car. Would be unwise.
So, as it is like that, we can buy ourself an insurance or have a kind of nationalized healthcare. 
As it is like that, we do not really have a choice to live without a certain kind of healthcare, if it is state-controlled or not.

3. In case of water and electricity US citizens already accept state overview. 
This simply because without proper drinking water or electricity, we would be in deep shit.
To fully privatize these sectors might prove unclever. Or you have to live with the fact, that the local water company decides to lower the quality of water to raise the shareholder value. 
Unthinkable ? I doubt so.

With any healthcare system it is the same, but the picture here is mixed:
Totally nationalized systems mean to pay the whole system out of tax-payers money.
Advantage: At least everybody get´s a certain kind of access to a medical system.
Disadvantage: Totally state controlled.

Totally private system: 
Only those who pay for it are able to get themselves a certain medical system.
Advantage: What money can buy you get.
Disadvantage: No money no medication.

So, to me this means, that something in-between should be there.
What and to what extend can be debated, but then without ideological heat and with more common sense.

To have an expensive postal service is rather a nuisance, but when healthcare comes into play, we are talking about life and death.

kind regads
ze germanguy
Totally private means


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2020)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Something that is not unlike  what is evolving in Australia.
> The person in  need of care will have to pay out of pocket  and have to  file  for reimbursement  from the government.
> Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government  care programs due to low  and slow payments.
> 
> How is that for a health care  solution?


I’m surprised to hear that doctors down under are allowed to decline patients

The People‘s Dictatorship there will probably close that loophole soon


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2020)

germanguy said:


> Good example might be electricity and water supply.
> We all need it - period.


Does that mean germans are entitled to free electricity paid for by other germans?


----------

