Yep...

[tvashtarkatena]

In this time of economic implosion (which must continue due to energy and other resource constraints, in addition to the worlds now unpayable debt), the U.S. will probably go one of two directions:

 

Euro-socialist, or American fascism.

 

It's hard to say which direction that will be, given that a substantial minority of the population subscribes wholeheartedly to the fascist model. The past 8 years proved that the fascists can actually win elections and enact their agenda, and move the general sentiment and rhetoric towards their position. Any student of Nazi Germany recognizes the power of a vocal minority. We now have, or have recently had, many of the hallmarks of fascism in place: torture, total surveillance, indefinite detention, wars of conquest, worship of the military, violent anti-liberalism, anti-intellectualism, the popularity of junk science, fascist, openly racist talk radio, the supremacy of Wall Street over the public good, the largest prison system in the world, unbelievably draconian sentences for minor crimes, fully militarized law enforcement, a 'zero tolerance' mentality...wow, quite a list. Way to go, America. Couple this with tough economic times, incredible national paranoia, a continually stressed out population, and the threat of an imploding way of life, and we could easily wind up with some extreme and desperate outcomes.

Edited September 22, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

americans don't like euro-fags, so i'm thinking were fucked

 

don't worry, tvashie, you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If "socialized" medicine is good enough for our soldiers, it is good enough for me.

 

I don't think "socialized" medicine is in any of the proposals. Doctors, hospitals, etc will still be private - and charge whatever they do now.

 

What is on the docket is replacing/supplanting the insurance industry - nationalization of it.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

unlimited support for the post office has niether driven ups or fedex out of business nor increased their prices (fuel costs sure have though)

 

Come on, Ivan, use your head. When has gov't EVER controlled its spending? When things get too expensive, they just increase taxes to cover the new "expense". Think of it this way - gov't run insurance is not competitive precisely because they can charge "under cost" untill "competitors" are out of business. But really, they don't charge "under cost" because they cover those costs through taxes taken elsewhere (or borrowing it and running bigger deficits).

 

And there is another aspect to undermine "competitiveness" depending on how the gov't insurance is paid for. If it is paid by taxing businesses or adding a payroll tax then business and employees who ALREADY have coverage will be paying extra for nothing and there will be an unfair non-competitive aspect to drive people and businesses toward the public option precisely to avoid the burden of double paying.

[prole]

If "socialized" medicine is good enough for our soldiers, it is good enough for me.

 

I don't think "socialized" medicine is in any of the proposals. Doctors, hospitals, etc will still be private - and charge whatever they do now.

 

What is on the docket is replacing/supplanting the insurance industry - nationalization of it.

 

Doctors say "bring it on!"

 

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.

 

The new poll, conducted by Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, shows a sharp 10 percent spike in the number of doctors supporting national insurance: 59 percent in 2007 compared to 49 percent five years earlier. This indicates that more physicians are eager for systematic changes, said Toledo physician Dr. Johnathon Ross, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

 

"What this means is the usual bloc of anti-reform is breaking up," he told The Toledo Blade. "These doctors are looking in the eyes of sick [uninsured] patients every day."

 

The poll results underscore mounting signs that doctors are resenting the increasingly short leash on which they are held by insurers and large hospital chains, the current masters of American medicine. And, increasingly, doctors seem to be showing support for a single-payer system that would essentially eliminate for-profit insurers and curb the power of big provider chains.

 

The ever-accelerating corporatization of health care is producing a seismic shift in the way that doctors look at universal health care. Doctors are experiencing an extreme and relatively sudden loss of control at the hands of insurers and hospital networks, while being snowed under by paperwork and bureaucratic battles with insurance companies over authorizations and payments. from--American Prospect July 1, 2008

[Water]

would a 'pure' (aka no such thing even) capitalism lend itself to approach healthcare from the directive of reducing sickness and investing in and incentivizing preventative care to gain long-term goals of less treatment (reduce long-term potential for profits)?

 

Is there any reason why a private health insurance company who's shareholders are the ones who must be answered to at the end of the day would take this approach? What would the competitive advantage be?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

would a 'pure' (aka no such thing even) capitalism lend itself to approach healthcare from the directive of reducing sickness and investing in and incentivizing preventative care to gain long-term goals of less treatment (reduce long-term potential for profits)?

 

Is there any reason why a private health insurance company who's shareholders are the ones who must be answered to at the end of the day would take this approach? What would the competitive advantage be?

 

First of all, we don't have "pure" capitalism right now in the US, nor have I ever advocated that we be more "pure".

 

Secondly, I already have expressed the opinion multiple times that I would favor regulation of the health care (and especially) the insurance industry. IMO, the latter should be non-profit - that is not answerable to a board of directors or shareholders.

 

Insurance should also be portable by law - across state lines, and you should be able to buy insurance in any state.

[ivan]

unlimited support for the post office has niether driven ups or fedex out of business nor increased their prices (fuel costs sure have though)

 

Come on, Ivan, use your head. When has gov't EVER controlled its spending? When things get too expensive, they just increase taxes to cover the new "expense". Think of it this way - gov't run insurance is not competitive precisely because they can charge "under cost" untill "competitors" are out of business. But really, they don't charge "under cost" because they cover those costs through taxes taken elsewhere (or borrowing it and running bigger deficits).

 

And there is another aspect to undermine "competitiveness" depending on how the gov't insurance is paid for. If it is paid by taxing businesses or adding a payroll tax then business and employees who ALREADY have coverage will be paying extra for nothing and there will be an unfair non-competitive aspect to drive people and businesses toward the public option precisely to avoid the burden of double paying.

i remember goverment controlling its spending just fine in the 90s when we ran a surplus, and for the vast majority of its history our government lived entirely w/n its means

 

i don't follow your rationale either - why didn't the post office and public universities destroy their competition by charging under cost? as i said, the private alternatives to the public ones there are plenty healthy.

 

i agree that potential double-dipping on businesses would be a problem, but businesses shouldn't be paying for health insurance anyway - it's a stupid model, espeically in a society where folks are skipping around from job to job a lot, or in an economy where people can't find employers who even offer health insurance.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i remember goverment controlling its spending just fine in the 90s when we ran a surplus,

 

Bullshit. Clinton raised taxes - the greatest tax increase in history up until that time. Exactly my point. He wanted to spend more, so he raised taxes.

 

i agree that potential double-dipping on businesses would be a problem, but businesses shouldn't be paying for health insurance anyway - it's a stupid model

 

And this stupid model is the result of a meddling gov't! And part of health insurance costs and the fact that insurance is not portable across state lines is also because of gov't meddling which has demanding that certain things are covered by all policies. Of course the gov't just needs to meddle some more, then all will work. Not.

 

 

[Water]

Secondly, I already have expressed the opinion multiple times that I would favor regulation of the health care (and especially) the insurance industry. IMO, the latter should be non-profit - that is not answerable to a board of directors or shareholders.

 

Insurance should also be portable by law - across state lines, and you should be able to buy insurance in any state.

 

now that sounds beyond reasonable. however, how would you propose that such measures are instituted? Especially altering the health insurance industry to be non-profit. I can imagine (the government regulators) asking the health insurance industries to switch to a non-profit model. I spose the town hallers would jump on the bandwagon for that one...

[tvashtarkatena]

unlimited support for the post office has niether driven ups or fedex out of business nor increased their prices (fuel costs sure have though)

 

Come on, Ivan, use your head. When has gov't EVER controlled its spending? When things get too expensive, they just increase taxes to cover the new "expense". Think of it this way - gov't run insurance is not competitive precisely because they can charge "under cost" untill "competitors" are out of business. But really, they don't charge "under cost" because they cover those costs through taxes taken elsewhere (or borrowing it and running bigger deficits).

 

And there is another aspect to undermine "competitiveness" depending on how the gov't insurance is paid for. If it is paid by taxing businesses or adding a payroll tax then business and employees who ALREADY have coverage will be paying extra for nothing and there will be an unfair non-competitive aspect to drive people and businesses toward the public option precisely to avoid the burden of double paying.

 

Government at all levels, save our federal government (empowered by jingoists like you), actually does a pretty good job of controlling spending. Unlike the plush office suites, jets, and lavish 'retreats' of their corporate counterparts, most government entities, housed in their spartan accomodations, are required by law to balance their budgets, all must do so sooner than later. Our own state has been very responsible in providing good service for the money...the monorail debacle excluded. We have excellent services here. Visit, say, the Dakotas or Mississippi and compare away. Enter the economic collapse. Did you accurately predict such an event? Well, neither did they.

 

Increasing taxes is politically hard, and government entities know this...so they also realize that money will always be in short supply.

 

Government entities also have a mission codified by law. Their activities (save the feds) are publicly transparent...unlike private corporations, who are out for themselves and, if not publicly traded, can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want.

 

You have obviously never worked with or for government in any capacity, and know next to nothing about what you're talking about here. Simply put: you're just spouting some shit someone else told you to say.

Edited September 22, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Government at all levels, save our federal government (empowered by jingoists like you),

 

that's all the farther I am reading.

 

Fuck off.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Secondly, I already have expressed the opinion multiple times that I would favor regulation of the health care (and especially) the insurance industry. IMO, the latter should be non-profit - that is not answerable to a board of directors or shareholders.

 

Insurance should also be portable by law - across state lines, and you should be able to buy insurance in any state.

 

now that sounds beyond reasonable. however, how would you propose that such measures are instituted? Especially altering the health insurance industry to be non-profit. I can imagine (the government regulators) asking the health insurance industries to switch to a non-profit model. I spose the town hallers would jump on the bandwagon for that one...

 

I don't know how it could/would be done, and yes, I assume there be a big outpouring of opposition to such an idea too. I would support it - others wouldn't.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Government at all levels, save our federal government (empowered by jingoists like you),

 

that's all the farther I am reading.

 

Fuck off.

 

That's cool. I'm writing for a larger audience.

 

Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Edited September 22, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Water]

So with a good idea, but zilch for application for it, and acknowledgment that there would be comparable vehement opposition to such changes if they were advocated at the national level -- you fault obama for.... ...and i realize there are faults, but, you would do better how?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So with a good idea, but zilch for application for it, and acknowledgment that there would be comparable vehement opposition to such changes if they were advocated at the national level -- you fault obama for.... ...and i realize there are faults, but, you would do better how?

 

I am opposed to some of his ideas philosophically - and I think they are not going to work. We also need changes in the right direction, but applied incrementally and not with some massive rehaul. I fear with the proposals I've seen, coupled with the compromises and backstepping that will occur, we'll see legislation that is ineffective, misplaced and expensive - nothing but a political victory which helps nothing.

[Water]

fair nuff, sounds quite reasonable to me. No insane prognostications. With that said, between the current economy and health insurance costs over the previous decade, this issue having been relatively ignored for too long, there is plenty of argument that 'nudging' over time is ineffective, especially in the short-term nature of politics.

 

Health Care is at a head, hell, it burst long ago... clean up with a single square of TP or a dump truck of legislation saw-dust dumped on it... i too wish I knew the best way that could actually be successful in politics and in practice.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

fair nuff, sounds quite reasonable to me. No insane prognostications. With that said, between the current economy and health insurance costs over the previous decade, this issue having been relatively ignored for too long, there is plenty of argument that 'nudging' over time is ineffective, especially in the short-term nature of politics.

 

Health Care is at a head, hell, it burst long ago... clean up with a single square of TP or a dump truck of legislation saw-dust dumped on it... i too wish I knew the best way that could actually be successful in politics and in practice.

 

I don't mean "nudges" - I would support something significant, but incremental. I also think we should focus on a small number of issues and not all of them at once. In particular - controlling costs, and getting people who want to get insured and pay for it, to be insured (mainly I am talking about this pre-existing conditions shit). I'd also support some sort of legislation penalizing companies who drag their feet on payouts for claims (but think that fraudulent claims should be enforced and punished as well).

[prole]

First of all, we don't have "pure" capitalism right now in the US...

 

Yeah, the closest we've come is taking a giant crap on us right now.

[kevbone]

Government at all levels, save our federal government (empowered by jingoists like you),

 

that's all the farther I am reading.

 

Fuck off.

 

 

Another dollar.

[tvashtarkatena]

I support taking what we've got, what has worked: Medicare, the VA system, federal employee health insurance, and opening it up to wider availability. I also support, and this could be incremental (but not too slow) the elimination of for profit health care. Ignoring that basic conflict of interest will not lead to a solution.

[Pete_H]

Its funny when people complain about the prospect of government involvement in health care, when there have been so many shining start of excellence in the private sector recently, with AIG, WaMu, Enron, etc. But I'm sure the right wing ideologues among us, like KKK, will probably blame these failures on libtard policies and such, no doubt.

[tvashtarkatena]

And the well known fact that 80% of new businesses go out of business within 2 years...with complete loss of initial investment all around.

 

So much for 'competition driven' fiscal responsibility.

 

KKK has never occupied a position of budgetary responsibility in any organization, public or private. If he had, he'd know what a circus most businesses are.

[olyclimber]

well is it not "competition driven" fiscal responsibility if it is a "sink or swim" environment? true that most companies are pretty hectic when it comes to budgetary considerations, esp. when you're dealing with a startup.

 

the problem of a government institution is that there is no continual drive to enhance or become more efficient. seems like it you're going to escape that mess, you would have to have a hybrid approach at a minimum.

[tvashtarkatena]

Government has many drivers to innovate and improve efficiency: a continuous scarcity of resources, political pressure, the press, individual performance evaluation systems tied to success of mission.

 

Just as many as any business, really.