Hillarycare part deux

[Jim]

IF WE PROVIDE HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE, NEXT THEY'LL START WANTING AIR TO BREATH TOO. IF THE LIBERAL MOONBAT HILLARIES OF THE WORLD GET THIER HANDS ON YOUR PIE THEY'LL BECOME THE FIFTH RIECH OF HTE NEW MELLINIUEM> MARK MY WORDS. BILL OF WRONGS TRYANNY OF THE STATE LEFT LEANING LIB MOONBAT NAZIS. I FEER MY GOVERNMENT BUT HATEM MY LIBEERLS MOONBATSZ.

 

I'll have what he is having.

 

Must be the painkillers

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Please tell me what the govenrment can't do to you today. I don't think denying you a surgery for an ingrown toenail is much of of persuasive tool when all they have to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

 

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted).

 

As for the former, well, they'll be regulating every aspect of your health care, not just "ingrown toenails". They'll decide when you can be treated, how much it can cost, what medicine you are "permitted" to take, and so on, all under a bureaucracy about as caring and efficient as the DMV.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Seems to work quite well for all other industrialized countries and the two largest sectors of government health care, the VA and medicare, are far more efficient deliverers of health care than any private sector insurance company.

 

The public sector effeciently provides other resources, emergency care, police, fire protection, schooling.

 

You can spend your money proping up the profit and advertisement sector, or you can actually spend it more efficiently on health care.

 

I haven't read Ms. Clinton's proposal yet - but I bet it is a half step. She has too much money from the insurance companies now to try anything creative.

 

 

As I said in a separate thread, PROVE IT first with a PILOT program in some large state or market. Run a gov't program in parallel with the private ones, and show us all how much better it is.

 

 

[archenemy]

Please tell me what the govenrment can't do to you today. I don't think denying you a surgery for an ingrown toenail is much of of persuasive tool when all they have to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

 

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted).

 

Not to get too far off track here, but the Patriot Act has numerous far-reaching implications. For example, the co I work for is having to do an amazing amount of expensive work providing the right environments for their software in other countries b/c no country will allow any of their stuff to be hosted here in US. Why not? B/c our gov't can look at or seize any files they want whenever they want. And so, no one will trust us with their files--stuff that really has nothing to do with us anyway. It sure doesn't fit my idea of a "gov't by the people for the people".

[Jim]

Well if you look at the current statistics it IS evident compared to the market sector that the public sector is more efficient.

 

We have ample evidence that the current market sector is not addressing the needs of 25 million Americans without health care, the costs are outpacing inflation 4 to 1, and we pay more per capita for less health care than all other industrialized countries. Why the preference for supporting the profit-motive companies that are goughing us? Seriously?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Please tell me what the govenrment can't do to you today. I don't think denying you a surgery for an ingrown toenail is much of of persuasive tool when all they have to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

 

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted).

 

Not to get too far off track here, but the Patriot Act has numerous far-reaching implications. For example, the co I work for is having to do an amazing amount of expensive work providing the right environments for their software in other countries b/c no country will allow any of their stuff to be hosted here in US. Why not? B/c our gov't can look at or seize any files they want whenever they want. And so, no one will trust us with their files--stuff that really has nothing to do with us anyway. It sure doesn't fit my idea of a "gov't by the people for the people".

 

OK, but that's a very different issue from the claim that "all the government has to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail".

 

And who cares about thread drift? It started with the first response to my post anyway.

[fenderfour]

Please tell me what the govenrment can't do to you today. I don't think denying you a surgery for an ingrown toenail is much of of persuasive tool when all they have to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

 

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted).

 

As for the former, well, they'll be regulating every aspect of your health care, not just "ingrown toenails". They'll decide when you can be treated, how much it can cost, what medicine you are "permitted" to take, and so on, all under a bureaucracy about as caring and efficient as the DMV.

 

You are pushing the logic of the "patriot-act handwringers" into universal healthcare. At least the "patriot-act handwringers" have a single data point for evidence. Currently, there is no evidence that government provided healthcare in the US won't work.

 

If you have insurance there is already someone deciding what, when, and how you will be treated. The big difference is that the person controlling it today is motivated by profit and your illness is seen as a liability.

 

The biggest change that will occur with government provided healthcare is simple; the current structure will die. Rich people won't be so rich.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well if you look at the current statistics it IS evident compared to the market sector that the public sector is more efficient.

 

We have ample evidence that the current market sector is not addressing the needs of 25 million Americans without health care, the costs are outpacing inflation 4 to 1, and we pay more per capita for less health care than all other industrialized countries. Why the preference for supporting the profit-motive companies that are goughing us? Seriously?

 

It needs to be more efficient AND offer at least as good service. I just don't trust government or the people trying to foist this on us. I'm tired of the rhetoric. Facta non verba. I want to see proof.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If you have insurance there is already someone deciding what, when, and how you will be treated. The big difference is that the person controlling it today is motivated by profit and your illness is seen as a liability.

 

And a government program will have its own interests that do NOT coincide with your best interests either.

 

The biggest change that will occur with government provided healthcare is simple; the current structure will die. Rich people won't be so rich.

 

Almost every member of congress is a multi-millionaire. And there will be many rich created from any gov't health care schema. Bureaucracies always manage to enrich themselves.

[ClimbingPanther]

butthat

 

ooh, the possibilities for pix

[fenderfour]

And a government program will have its own interests that do NOT coincide with your best interests either.

 

I'm as in to fear mongering as anyone, but I can't really call this a compelling argument for the status quo.

 

No one can represent my interests better than me. In seeking healthcare, my interest is the most informed, fastest, and successful treatment available, all of which cost money. The current structure has someone making decisions about my care who only has incentive to reduce money spent. Their interests are working in direct opposition to mine.

 

Almost every member of congress is a multi-millionaire. And there will be many rich created from any gov't health care schema. Bureaucracies always manage to enrich themselves.

 

...and all of them were poor before they got into politics

Edited September 17, 2007 by fenderfour

[JayB]

Seems to work quite well for all other industrialized countries and the two largest sectors of government health care, the VA and medicare, are far more efficient deliverers of health care than any private sector insurance company.

 

The public sector effeciently provides other resources, emergency care, police, fire protection, schooling.

 

You can spend your money proping up the profit and advertisement sector, or you can actually spend it more efficiently on health care.

 

I haven't read Ms. Clinton's proposal yet - but I bet it is a half step. She has too much money from the insurance companies now to try anything creative.

 

 

Providing services in a sector in which the price mechanism coordinates supply and demand, sets prices, allocates capital for new therapies and technology, etc is a much different task than attempting to manage the entire market via a centralized administrative mechanism.

 

Thankfully - I imagine that Hillary is actually proposing something along the lines of making insurance compulsory, and using a combination of tax-credits and subsidies for working adults who would not otherwise be able to afford the premiums, which is something quite different. Guess I'll have to read the article.

 

 

 

[dt_3pin]

I just don't trust government or the people trying to foist this on us. I'm tired of the rhetoric. Facta non verba. I want to see proof.

 

Sorry about the non-sequitur, but this statement brings the work "Iraq" to mind.

[Jim]

Here's a decent general media article that spells it out

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/page/1/

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thankfully - I imagine that Hillary is actually proposing something along the lines of making insurance compulsory, and using a combination of tax-credits and subsidies for working adults who would not otherwise be able to afford the premiums, which is something quite different. Guess I'll have to read the article.

 

Can't afford, or choose not to buy it? I never ceased to be amazed by those who claim they can't afford something, but scratch the surface and they have quite a few expensive hobbies and blow money on entertainment, and wasteful spending.

 

And what are we talking about anyways? Compulsory catastrophic insurance, or covering the cost of everyone's snot-nosed kid going to the clinic constantly? And what about personal responsibility - i.e. you eat, live and drink like a pig, and want the taxpayer to foot your bill?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Here's a decent general media article that spells it out

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/page/1/

 

So, create a program and let the people who want to use it to do so, and let the rest of us opt out and not have to pay into it. If the pilot works, then I'm in.

 

 

[Jim]

Well you're being quite clear in your preferences anyway. I'm just willing to give it a go now given the current state of affairs.

[JayB]

Well if you look at the current statistics it IS evident compared to the market sector that the public sector is more efficient.

 

We have ample evidence that the current market sector is not addressing the needs of 25 million Americans without health care, the costs are outpacing inflation 4 to 1, and we pay more per capita for less health care than all other industrialized countries. Why the preference for supporting the profit-motive companies that are goughing us? Seriously?

 

Transferring the tax advantages that currently go to employers to individuals, compulsory coverage with subsidies where appropriate, coupled with tax-free HSA's and a nationwide market for health insurance plus existing medicare/medicaid programs for children/the-elderly/the-disabled/etc would result in universal coverage, greater affordability, and foster price transparency and price competition in the medical marketplace, which would help contain total expenditures.

 

What [positive outcomes] would nationalizing healthcare accomplish that the above reforms would not?

[kevbone]

here we go again

 

Here we go again is right……she was right in 93 and is right this time. She got defeated by the people who would loose money from her plan…..republicans and pharmaceutical companies. The health care system has to be fixed. Someone has to do it.

 

Get off her back…..

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well you're being quite clear in your preferences anyway. I'm just willing to give it a go now given the current state of affairs.

 

Well, I recently read health care costs will go up 78% in 6 years, if that actually happens, it may very well precipitate a quick change.

 

Back to my point above, imagine that this limited "pilot" program exists, and it is an option on the benefits package for those of us insured through our employers. Right now I have two choices: a PPO plan with "more choice" and a POS plan with a restricted set of doctors/clinics I can use. Imagine the third (gov't) program is an option as well, and I can change coverage say once a year. Right now, I don't think the PPO is worth the extra cost and am fine with it. I might give a government program a shot under this type of scheme. I could actually SEE the cost, and make a personal decision on my coverage, which I could change, say, each year, if I am not happy about it through experience in that system. This is far superior than having all these things decided FOR ME by government as the result of a specific candidate's platform and (tyranny of the) majority rule.

 

[JayB]

Related question: can anyone arguing in favor of nationalizing health care make a credible argument against nationalizing the production, distribution, and provision of food?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

here we go again

 

Here we go again is right……she was right in 93 and is right this time. She got defeated by the people who would loose money from her plan…..republicans and pharmaceutical companies. The health care system has to be fixed. Someone has to do it.

 

Get off her back…..

 

go back to posting your rhino-in-a-thong and 80's images of Janet Jackson and Eddie Van Halen. That's about the limit of what you can "discuss", 'Boner.

 

[JayB]

Well you're being quite clear in your preferences anyway. I'm just willing to give it a go now given the current state of affairs.

 

Well, I recently read health care costs will go up 78% in 6 years, if that actually happens, it may very well precipitate a quick change.

 

Back to my point above, imagine that this limited "pilot" program exists, and it is an option on the benefits package for those of us insured through our employers. Right now I have two choices: a PPO plan with "more choice" and a POS plan with a restricted set of doctors/clinics I can use. Imagine the third (gov't) program is an option as well, and I can change coverage say once a year. Right now, I don't think the PPO is worth the extra cost and am fine with it. I might give a government program a shot under this type of scheme. I could actually SEE the cost, and make a personal decision on my coverage, which I could change, say, each year, if I am not happy about it through experience in that system. This is far superior than having all these things decided FOR ME by government as the result of a specific candidate's platform and (tyranny of the) majority rule.

 

Excellent points/ideas.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Related question: can anyone arguing in favor of nationalizing health care make a credible argument against nationalizing the production, distribution, and provision of food?

 

Another tangent... I can say that the WSLCB is a total piece of crap in comparison to the prices, availability and convenience of states like California, where you can buy liquor in grocery stores, RiteAid, private liquor stores, or even CostCo. The hours of the store suck here, the prices are higher, the selection is worse, and you can't buy over the internet. Lame.

 

 

[Jim]

You mean like providing subsidized water for wetland crops in the CA desert or price guarantees for wheat or cotton, or maybe getting paid to not grow something?

 

Silly question dude.