Behold: National Health Care

[Fairweather]

I'll bet 79 million Americans have trouble paying their bills period. Should we all chip in?

 

Yes, if it is the RIGHT thing to do and if it might actually SAVE US MONEY, why not?

 

"But it's NOT socialism!"

[mattp]

"But it's NOT socialism!"

 

Read the editorial I posted above. Then respond. Argue how you have not swallowed the "socialism" pill and abandoned effort to actually inform yourself. Take your time.

[Fairweather]

Not biting, Matt. You can editorialize until you actually believe your own tripe--or what Dave Ross told you was true. Doesn't make it so. The government-controlled, single-pay health care you have promoted (in your conversation with JayB) is socialism by any definition.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'll bet 79 million Americans have trouble paying their bills period. Should we all chip in?

 

Yes, if it is the RIGHT thing to do and if it might actually SAVE US MONEY, why not?

 

why don't you "chip in" buddy - with your own fucking money instead of forcing others to do so. oh, wait, that's a problem, huh? yeah, you are very good at spending someone else's cash.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Get on

 

your mom?

 

So how many happy endings did you administer to your male "clientele" today, Mr. Size S Masseur?

 

[archenemy]

So besides not providing enough preventative care as mentioned above, the second painful weakness in our system is that we don't have limits. We don't ration healthcare. In my opinion, the rationing of healthcare is one of the strengths that socialist systems have. If you are over 75, your chances of getting that heart transplant you need is pretty low. All the healthy young recipients with more ROI to offer come first. To me, this is reasonable.

Also, our social acceptance of dying in hospitals is absurd. Feel old? Like your going to die soon? Go home. Hospice will take care of your basic needs and comfort meds. You will take care of your DNR request. Your family will be with you. You'll have some peace as well as just let nature take its course. Watching a person die and comforting them during this time is a phenomenal experience that no one should miss. Yet we are willing to let hospitals dictate/sanitize/and marketize this intimate experience that should be shared with family.

 

We don't do this here because we are so scared of aging that we can't even begin to look at death. People suddenly become hysterical when someone suggests euthanizing a dying patient, aborting a malformed child, or insisting on a DNR and having to fight the medical team to not save that persons life. When did we go beyond trying to improve everyone's lot to trying to dictate it to them? Why do we make it sound totally resonable to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on surgeries that may only extent an elderly persons life a few more years?

 

socialism, communism, americanism, whatever. Just a little semi-objective realism here would help our system to refocus on doing what makes the most sense. Sure, there are going to be hard calls to make; there always are in hospitals. But maybe it would be easier for them if we didn't walk in expecting top-notch, perfectly-safe, flawlessly-executed instant cures at our demand and not at our expense. We have become completely unreasonable in our expectations from our medical system and even more unwilling to pay for it. That just doesn't work.

[Dechristo]

...our social acceptance of dying in hospitals is absurd. Feel old? Like your going to die soon? Go home. Hospice will take care of your basic needs and comfort meds. You will take care of your DNR request. Your family will be with you. You'll have some peace as well as just let nature take its course. Watching a person die and comforting them during this time is a phenomenal experience that no one should miss. Yet we are willing to let hospitals dictate/sanitize/and marketize this intimate experience that should be shared with family.

 

 

[mattp]

Not biting, Matt. You can editorialize until you actually believe your own tripe--or what Dave Ross told you was true. Doesn't make it so. The government-controlled, single-pay health care you have promoted (in your conversation with JayB) is socialism by any definition.

 

Whatever, Fairweather. What you've shown in these three different discussions is that you know little about what you speak and have even less inclination to look anything up. Government-operated medical facilities are known for poor quality service? If we reform healthcare the government will actually run all the hospitals and employ all the doctors? Hilary wants to outlaw private doctors? You haven't heard whether Obama has anything specific to propose? All of this appears as if your primary source of information is your favorite talk show host or right wing blogger.

 

Call it socialism - I don't care. My original point was that you've completely closed your mind because someone labeled a set of proposals as socialism. You have not even tried to debate that particular point.

[mattp]

KK, where did I say I wanted to spend other people's cash? Aren't you the one who argued that tolls on a new 520 bridge would be a travesty? What do you think about public education -- is that socialism involving transfer payments?

 

I don't know the reality but one of the sources I linked above argued that we already pay more -- you and I as taxpayers already pay more - than we would for universal coverage. If that is the case, would you still be against saving money and covering everybody? It might free up more change for highway 520.

 

 

[Bug]

I admire you perserverence Matt.

You are still trying to get these guys past "Republican good. Democrat bad".

It takes a true optimist.

[AlpineK]

What Fairweather doesn't want to acknowledge is that uninsured people end up costing everybody money.

 

All of us are going to need medical care a few times in our life. Also it's a benefit to the US as a nation to keep everybody to a reasonable amount of health. A benefit to the economy and our national security.

 

It's a national need, but it costs money to provide. If everybody pitches in based on their ability then we will improve our country. It's very similar to citizens pitching in as a group for a military.

 

Sure, things with any national system will not be perfect. Just look at the mess in Iraq for an example.

[blurpy]

What Fairweather doesn't want to acknowledge is that uninsured people end up costing everybody money.

 

All of us are going to need medical care a few times in our life. Also it's a benefit to the US as a nation to keep everybody to a reasonable amount of health. A benefit to the economy and our national security.

 

It's a national need, but it costs money to provide. If everybody pitches in based on their ability then we will improve our country. It's very similar to citizens pitching in as a group for a military.

 

Sure, things with any national system will not be perfect. Just look at the mess in Iraq for an example.

 

 

Great summary. These are hard questions that require pragmatism and thoughtfulness to address. Reducing them to slogans helps no one.

 

I like the government telling me what to do / not do, or how to spend my money as little as the next guy, meaning, I don't always like the constraints placed upon me by living in a society.

 

But you cannot have the one without the other, and humans are fallible, so we continue trying to figure it out. A little 'I don't know' goes a long way...

[Fairweather]

What Fairweather doesn't want to acknowledge is that uninsured people end up costing everybody money.

 

 

I've acknowledged it many times if you and Matt have been paying attention. What I'm saying is that I'm willing to keep doing that as opposed to the socialist model the two of you seem to crave. Matt; re read your exchange with JayB. You clearly expressed a desire to see a government paid and government run health care system. Please explain how that is not socialist. It clearly is.

 

And Matt: I stopped reading most of your links after it was exposed that you like to recommend books which you have not even read.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

If everybody pitches in based on their ability then we will improve our country.

Hmmm...that sounds familiar. Care to take a guess?

[Tokogirl]

What Fairweather doesn't want to acknowledge is that uninsured people end up costing everybody money.

 

 

I've acknowledged it many times if you and Matt have been paying attention. What I'm saying is that I'm willing to keep doing that as opposed to the socialist model the two of you seem to crave. Matt; re read your exchange with JayB. You clearly expressed a desire to see a government paid and government run health care system. Please explain how that is not socialist. It clearly is.

 

FW,

Gov't paid health care system - DSHS, L & I insurance, VA benefits, Indian Health Services, Medicare, and Medicaid all $$ come from our taxes.

Something to think about:

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world. Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. In the United States, around 84% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (60%), purchased individually (9%), or provided by government programs (27%; there is some overlap in these figures). Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.

 

Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people. Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.

 

 

[AlpineK]

For years as an employer I've paid into L&I. It benefited employees, who had no insurance, that I could at least cover work related accidents.

 

It was the law, the right thing to do, and it didn't cost that much.

[Tokogirl]

For years as an employer I've paid into L&I. It benefited employees, who had no insurance, that I could at least cover work related accidents.

 

It was the law, the right thing to do, and it didn't cost that much.

 

Agree that it is a very good thing to have and run by the state of WA. I think that it may help to instill a sense of responsibility for safety in the workplace.

[Bug]

OMG! Not socialism.

Next thing you know they are going to want to socialize Highways, military, and sewer.

What a travesty!

I would much rather see all of that under the control of the same people who control big tobbacco, oil, and the huge pharmeceuticals. They really do have our best interests in mind and would screw over their stockholders in a milisecond if it meant making us better off.

 

I do hope you understand sarcasm.

[Peakpimp]

OMG! Not socialism.

Next thing you know they are going to want to socialize Highways, military, and sewer.

 

Don't forget the postal service too!

[mattp]

Don't forget the postal service too!

 

Yeah. The last thing we need is for our doctors to start "going postal."

[Dechristo]

Yeah, in the end, proctologists should be the only doctors whose practice includes Special Delivery.

[Off_White]

a government paid and government run health care system. Please explain how that is not socialist. It clearly is.

 

Yeah, I hate the fucking VA medical system too, just give those damned veteran commie pricks $100 a month and let them buy their own insurance on the open market.

[Fairweather]

Are you saying the VA gives the same quality health care as the private sector? Seems to me they've been historically sub-par.

 

The postal service? They are self-sustaining...and compete with Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL, etc.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you saying the VA gives the same quality health care as the private sector? Seems to me they've been historically sub-par.

 

And besides, fuck, man, since the VA is so awesome and so it the USPS, let's nationalize the whole fucking economy! go communism!

 

[Fairweather]

If it quacks like a duck...