mattp

Are you kidding? Our roads are pretty damn amazing if you ask me. By all accounts we've let maintenance of our infrastructure slide in recent years and I'm no traffic engineer but I have traveled a fair bit and I can't think of anywhere that the roads are vastly better than ours. Yes, there are some pretty sweet highways in Europe, but they pay more in taxes and much less of them actually drive on the roads than we do. Is that what you want?

That's the same BS argument that canyondweller tried the other day. Fact is, half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses, and most of those people have health insurance. See Harvard study, reported on MSNBC. Sure, you and I both know plenty of people who enjoy relatively good health and would rather spend their money on other things. That doesn't at all mean that the uninsured or underinsured in this country have chosen to spend their money on second cars and boats instead of healthcare. As I pointed out, to the sneers of Fairweather and Canyondweller, my wife and I pay over $7,000.00 a year for medical insurance plus deducibles and other uninsured costs (our deductible is $1,500.00) and we have no kids and no history of expensive medical ills. If you work for the government (god forbid) or medium to larger businesses you probably have pretty good insurance and don't have any idea how much it actually costs. If you work for small business, are self employed, or are disabled -- maybe not.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Russian politics, Scott, but I'm sure you realize our own government does the same thing: say one thing and do another. Take "we're going to smoke him out and kill him" for example. It is obvious that we were not after Bin Laden when we invaded Afghanistan or that, at least, capturing him was way down our list of priorities. Here's a paper from the Cato Institute you might want to read: Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism Fairweather is not far of the mark here: Russia is taking some chances and it is a dangerous situation, but their conduct is understandable at least in some fashion. Calling them liars and propagandists is a distraction at this point and only weakens our argument when it is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course, even if the government can provide health insurance or even healthcare services cheaper than the private companies and of better quality, and even if their tax burden might actually go down, Fairweather, KK and Canyondweller would still be against it because this would be soclalism. It is a good thing these insane "government is the enemy" ideas weren't so popular when we undertook to wipe out Polio or build the interstate highway system and I, for one, am glad we at least have the medicaid and medicare systems that we presently have.

It is even more than that, Bill. We are already paying for a lot more than simply emergency rooms and these guys say that if you account for all tax-funded healthcare spending we are already paying more than we might for even a single payor healthcare system. PDF file for extended discussion

As far as I can tell, "most accounts" that you refer to are B.S. I've been looking for a source to support your argument for over an hour now, and can't find it . Here are a couple of links: wikipedia health security act See what you can dig up, but I think you've been fooled by industry-based propaganda.

Dude you're paranoid. Don't you think that she would have wanted to have the option to see a private doctor herself? Do you think she planned to fly to Monaco for this? I think you've been had by some right wing propagandist Hillary Haters.

Yup. Freud bit me. I'm curoius about this idea that Hillary was going to close down or take over all private healthcare services. That is not consistent with what I've recently read. Hmm.

What I'm saying is not necessarily business/good, government/bad, but rather there are ways to retool the partnership that already exists between the two. That is what anybody who is involved in any discussion of possible national litigation is talking about too.

Hillary Clinton's proposal in 1993/94 proposed just that. Did Hillary Clinton really propose to close or nationalize all private clinics and hospitals? I don't think so.

Dude: It is not lawyer's games. When you make a statement like "VA benefits are payment for services rendered, but securing services for anybody else is a transfer payment," it is meaningless if you can't explain what you mean or back it up.

Ah. You finally spit it out. You ask a complicated question here. Would the government establish a health history database? Yes, just as the insurance companies now do. Would they use it to deny employment? Maybe. would they use it in government-backed lending programs? This seems a little more of a stretch but I suppose they could. Genetic predisposition? I'm not sure what you mean. The root of your question seems to be that you believe the government will not protect our privacy and will mis-use any information it gets. As to privacy, I'm not at all convinced that the government isn't better about protecting our privacy than phone companies, credit card companies, and private insurance companies right now and I personally would be a lot less worried about my health history if we had universal healthcare and I could not be denied coverage for existing conditions or if I suffered a financial disaster. As to abuse of the information, I can only say much the same thing: I trust the government with my information more than I trust business interests. Much more. You and I are never going to agree about this. I actually think the government does a good job of providing services. I think the US Postal Service is great. I think the Interstate highway system is pretty cool, I doubt private business could have won WW II for us, and you know what? I'd like to see MORE government control and less private enterprise in a variety of areas. But back to the topic at hand: I don't think health insurance companies would have wiped out polio, I don't trust them to take care of me. I think our present healthcare system is a disgrace.

Nope. I'm questioning your term "transfer payment."

You tell mle what your "pivacy problems inherent in my healthcare ideas" are, and I'll gladly discuss them here or in the other thread. For the fourth time: you gotta say what your issue is. I'm not a mind reader.

I understand the idea of military benefits. However, you are saying that it is a transfer payment if I pay taxes and some of those taxes happen to go toward medical services for somebody else. Ignore the obvious fact that this is happening right now because we provide government-funded services through programs for the indigent and through federally reimbursed services at emergency rooms. But tell me: is it a "transfer payment" if I buy health insurance and don't go see the doctor but my neighbor who has the same insurance company does? I realize you dislike the idea of wellfare, and you think that veterans earned every benefit they get, but is that really true? I have a climbing acquaintance who as far as I know had no substantial skills, served in peace time, made decent money, and left the service with a trade in which he now earns more money than he ever dreamed of. Did he "earn" VA services for the rest of his life?

It is not obtuse. So now you are saying that government run services are not socialism, but only when it involves "transfer payments?" And what is this "transfer payment" theory? Anytime my taxes pay for something somebody else is going to benefit from -- is that a "transfer payment?" The government provides roads, utilities, defense, weather forecasting, and even hiking trails. Why are these legitimate government services, but administering or regulating a health insurance operation is not?

I thought you said that government provision of healthcare services = socialism.

Now that could very well be. With folks like you all worried about socilized medicine, with the insurance companies fighting any reform tooth and nail because they fear competition and public scrutiny, and with just plain inertia, we may not see fantastic improvement. That and if any aspect of any new system is run by appointees who are actually opposed to the mission of the organization they are running, as Bush has done with a bunch of agencies, and any benefit may be hamstrung.

Ah, now you are switching arguments. OK. So now you think that government "interference" makes things worse? The medicare system is more efficient than any health insurance company out there, and the Bethesda Naval Hospital is so good that even the president goes there. My clients who go to VA facilities locally report they get good service but want more. What is wrong with that? These ARE socialized medicine but you don't see even the most strident anti-reform advocate saying we should abandon these services. I agree about the confusion and bullshit rhetoric: that was my point about the use of the term "socilized medicine" all along.

Dude: relax. There is virtually no prospect that we will see a single payor system any time soon and I don't think any body is even seriously proposing a move toward government provision of actual services.

cc.com'ers talk about all kinds of crap. I personally would actually favor a single payor system and yes, you are right, I think the insurance companies are a major part of the problem. But that is not to say that any movement toward universal healthcare is "socialism." Read that NYT editorial I cut and pasted in the other thread. "Here comes socialized medicine" is a propaganda ploy.

Your average leftist is for all kinds of stuff but in any realistic scenario where we might see a move toward universal healthcare, such as the proposals touted by Obama and Clinton, they are talking about requiring people to buy healthcare and yes there will be some subsidies but "redistributing wealth" and "socialism?" I don't think even Ralph Nadar is taling about having the government run more hospitals or be the boss of your doctor. Further, if we look at what the government is already spending to provide healthcare services for the indigent and the elderly, veterans and government workers, emergency services and research, etc. etc. etc., it is not clear to me how much if any more in taxes you the victim of all of this is going to pay. Even looking at this broad summary of "all proposals however unlikely" I see no proposal for the State to run the provision of services there. The cries of "socialism" have got you worried,but look at the actual proposals before you assume we're talking about big brother running your doctor's office.

I don't believe the current proposals call for the government running any more of the provision of healthcare services than present. I'm not sure to the extent that they even propose the government actually provide healthcare insurance, but neither one of them proposes to restrict or take over existing private healthecare insurance. Meanwhile, as you are morally opposed to socialism, I take it you and your parents will not in any way use medicare? You must also be calling for the closure of all VA hospitals, right?

KK, if you think that having the government run or maybe only encourage an insurance company along side private business offering the same is socialism and are not interested in questioning the baloney scare tactics fed you by insurance companies and others with a financial investment in the present healthcare system, I'm not sure you are in a good place to be calling Kevbone ignorant here. Clearly there are some similarities and some differences between Iraq and Vietnam. I'm guessing Kevbone is saying that he believes we hare or will lose in Iraq, and it is a matter of time before we have to bail.

We could think of a long list of differences. So what? Is your point that if there are some differences there can be no comparisons? And I ask again: what comparisons did you think I made, anyway? I probably did compare something about the two during the last six years of discussion around here but I'm not sure what you are referring to.