Health Care Reform

[vison]

The only purpose that exists for the government to be involved, is to facilitate a transfer of money from those that earn a lot, to those that earn little to nothing. This would be what you refer to as "general taxation for the public good" that is socialism.

Like the way we keep our roads in shape? A bit of everyone's taxes goes to maintain the highways. Do you think you should have the "freedom" to decide whether or not your road gets fix? You should be able to leave the potholes there if you want? Or opt out of the tax if you don't drive?

Do you that THAT is socialism, too?

No, roads fit in the other category, although if the government hired private companies to fix the roads instead of doing it themselves, they'd get done faster and last longer...

Yes, we had a premier here in BC that had the same idea. He "privatized" the highways maintenance and guess what? Roads through our mountains - and all our roads have to go through mountains - deteriorated at a terrific rate. The government, under the last premier, had to PAY THE PRIVATE COMPANIES MORE to ge them to do the work they had contracted to do. It cost MORE than it would have cost if the idiot had left the maintenance in the public sector. MORE. That is, NOT LESS. Just in case you were unsure of my meaning.

Saved no money whatsoever and is, in fact, responsible for several dreadful accidents that killed people.

The job of the government is to secure the public good. It is not the job of the government to line the pockets of rich campaign contributors but that seems to be the current trend.

Better dead than red, indeed. A terrible mantra making a dreadful comeback.

[River]

What can I say, you get what you pay for.

When it comes to health care, I think a lot of people would see that as an improvement.

[yovargas]

It's quite simple, yov. There are public services that can only be organized and performed at a government level (be it local, state, or national). This would fit into your "general taxation for the public good" that is acceptable.

Except for law enforcement, I can't think of anything that "can only be organized and performed at a government level". And even that is debatable. (Literally; I've seen the debates.) Therefore, unless you only support taxation for law enforcement, I find your attempted distinction false and the "fear of socialism" thing empty rhetoric.

[JewelSong]

although if the government hired private companies to fix the roads instead of doing it themselves, they'd get done faster and last longer...

You THINK? OMG, what PLANET are you on????

(Ever hear of the "Big Dig????" Boston's giant money-sucking 20-year project? Using PRIVATE COMPANIES?)

[halplm]

If the whole point of "maximum coverage" is to reduce costs by making sure healthy people stay healthy (it's not really), then you HAVE to force them to go to the doctor somehow, or they still won't!

Why wouldn't they, if it was covered and they were informed?

I don't understand your mind-set at all. Not one little bit.

They won't because they are healthy. The same as now, if they're not going, why would making it "free" make them any more likely to go?

I have lived in the UK for four years now. It is a blessed relief not to have to worry about where my health care coverage is coming from. It is ridiculous to have to change coverage every time you change jobs, or to be without coverage if you happen to be between jobs or to have to be sick with worry every time you get a sore throat or need a medical test. Health care coverage should not be tied into your employment. It should be an across-the-board benefit for everyone, paid for through taxes and freely available to ALL citizens of the US. Period.

No. Period.

[halplm]

Like the way we keep our roads in shape? A bit of everyone's taxes goes to maintain the highways. Do you think you should have the "freedom" to decide whether or not your road gets fix? You should be able to leave the potholes there if you want? Or opt out of the tax if you don't drive?

Do you that THAT is socialism, too?

No, roads fit in the other category, although if the government hired private companies to fix the roads instead of doing it themselves, they'd get done faster and last longer...

Yes, we had a premier here in BC that had the same idea. He "privatized" the highways maintenance and guess what? Roads through our mountains - and all our roads have to go through mountains - deteriorated at a terrific rate. The government, under the last premier, had to PAY THE PRIVATE COMPANIES MORE to ge them to do the work they had contracted to do. It cost MORE than it would have cost if the idiot had left the maintenance in the public sector. MORE. That is, NOT LESS. Just in case you were unsure of my meaning.

Saved no money whatsoever and is, in fact, responsible for several dreadful accidents that killed people.

The job of the government is to secure the public good. It is not the job of the government to line the pockets of rich campaign contributors but that seems to be the current trend.

Better dead than red, indeed. A terrible mantra making a dreadful comeback.

Sorry, hit submit on accident...

Obviously he hired the wrong private companies.

As far as lining the pockets of rich campaign contributers... what on earth do you think the Democrats do???? What was the stimulus bill? What are the backroom deals for Unions? What was the nationalization of the auto industry?

Democrats live for payback to their election buddies, so don't try and pin that on one side only.

[Ellienor]

I like the Better Dead than Red applied to healthcare. So, so unintentionally and unfortunately correct.

Hal, I am disappointed that you chose not to try to provide solutions to the scenario I presented, i.e., somebody was denied coverage and ran up a huge bill and died or was disabled and unable to work to pay it off. You say, "Oh, I don't have all the solutions." If there is not a clearly identifiable solution that you can point to, now, after all this time and debate, perhaps one doesn't exist, other than (1) letting people die on the streets and (2) somehow "socializing" the loss incurred in these situations onto the government or onto insurance companies. What's Choice (3), Hal???????? I mean, if the republicans could come up with one, they should have done it by now. If they have a solution and they're being quiet about it, well, then, that is pretty crappy and unpatriotic of them. Because I would like to hear what that solution would be.

[JewelSong]

They won't because they are healthy. The same as now, if they're not going, why would making it "free" make them any more likely to go?

Because...um...it won't cost them anything? And many times, the reason they aren't going is because they can't afford it? I know that when I had dental coverage, I went to the dentist for a cleaning far more often than I did when I had to pay out of pocket.

It should be an across-the-board benefit for everyone, paid for through taxes and freely available to ALL citizens of the US. Period.

No. Period.

Why not? Don't you think everyone should have access to health care? And if you don't, who should be left out?

[halplm]

although if the government hired private companies to fix the roads instead of doing it themselves, they'd get done faster and last longer...

You THINK? OMG, what PLANET are you on????

(Ever hear of the "Big Dig????" Boston's giant money-sucking 20-year project? Using PRIVATE COMPANIES?)

Sigh... can you imagine what it would have cost if government was doing it? The example does not fit my statement anyway, as a one time huge project is not the same as an ongoing maintenance situation. But we're veering off topic a bit.

[yovargas]

If the whole point of "maximum coverage" is to reduce costs by making sure healthy people stay healthy (it's not really), then you HAVE to force them to go to the doctor somehow, or they still won't!

Why wouldn't they, if it was covered and they were informed?

I don't understand your mind-set at all. Not one little bit.

They won't because they are healthy. The same as now, if they're not going, why would making it "free" make them any more likely to go?

Are you being contrary just to be contrary? Yeesh. Cancer screenings alone.....

[halplm]

I like the Better Dead than Red applied to healthcare. So, so unintentionally and unfortunately correct.

Hal, I am disappointed that you chose not to try to provide solutions to the scenario I presented, i.e., somebody was denied coverage and ran up a huge bill and died or was disabled and unable to work to pay it off. You say, "Oh, I don't have all the solutions." If there is not a clearly identifiable solution that you can point to, now, after all this time and debate, perhaps one doesn't exist, other than (1) letting people die on the streets and (2) somehow "socializing" the loss incurred in these situations onto the government or onto insurance companies. What's Choice (3), Hal???????? I mean, if the republicans could come up with one, they should have done it by now. If they have a solution and they're being quiet about it, well, then, that is pretty crappy and unpatriotic of them. Because I would like to hear what that solution would be.

And I don't appreciate you setting up a strawman. I have clearly stated I agree there are problems that need to be fixed, and anyone here can come up with specific hypothetical situaitons that really suck and claim something needs to be done for all the people in such a shocking situation. Fine, fix it for them!

Don't ruin the rest of the system to do it!

[halplm]

Why wouldn't they, if it was covered and they were informed?

I don't understand your mind-set at all. Not one little bit.

They won't because they are healthy. The same as now, if they're not going, why would making it "free" make them any more likely to go?

Are you being contrary just to be contrary? Yeesh. Cancer screenings alone.....

who are you asking?

I'm pointing out the obvious, that ensuring universal coverage (which only single payer does, by the way), does not ensure universal participation.

[yovargas]

I give up.
You clearly have no interest in have a discussion.

[halplm]

I give up.
You clearly have no interest in have a discussion.

That seems an odd thing to say, I'm having about 15 discussions... can't keep them all straight in my head...

[Griffon64]

halplm - to me it simply doesn't make logical sense that private companies contracted by government would be able to fix roads for cheaper. The private company is chasing a profit the government isn't. So, how would they make that profit? Well, they could charge the government a lot. ( That doesn't bring down the cost. ) Or, they could use the cheapest materials they can get away with. ( That doesn't make the roads last longer. )

Of course, this doesn't mean the government is the default cheaper provider, either. I've seen the sausage that gets made in big private corporations, and I can only imagine it could easily be worse in big governmental programs.

But, if government truly applied itself to providing public services in an efficient manner, there is no way the efficiency can be beat by private companies, because of the profit factor.

Anyway, we can argue back and forth all day long about how we think things could be done better. Our thoughts on it doesn't mean a thing and has nothing to do with reality, because neither of us has done objective research to see whether the data ( the whole set of data ) fits our opinions.

[JewelSong]

ensuring universal coverage (which only single payer does, by the way), does not ensure universal participation.

Of course it doesn't ENSURE it. But it makes it much more likely. As Yov said, cancer screenings alone. May I add to that? Mammograms. Colonoscopy. Blood pressure. Blood sugar. Pap test. Prostate tests. Thyroid exam.

All these are ROUTINE, preventative tests that need to be done on a regular basis, especially as you get older. They are tests that can help catch things early and allow them to be treated. That prevent invasive and costlier surgeries and treatments later on.

And they are tests that many people SKIP or PUT OFF because...guess why? THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!

[halplm]

halplm - to me it simply doesn't make logical sense that private companies contracted by government would be able to fix roads for cheaper. The private company is chasing a profit the government isn't. So, how would they make that profit? Well, they could charge the government a lot. ( That doesn't bring down the cost. ) Or, they could use the cheapest materials they can get away with. ( That doesn't make the roads last longer. )

The government has no motivation for speed or durability.

Private companies would profit by being faster for sure, because there's less labor involved. They would use cheap materials if they are in a one time deal and don't have to worry about repeat business... but I'm thinking more long term. If the company was contracted to keep the roads in good repair for an extended period, they would make the most money if they only had to pave them once quickly, and they lasted a long time. If they have to keep going out there to repair them, they lose their profit to labor costs.

In the short term, yes, they can make a quick buck by doing substandard work with substandard materials, but most successful businesses don't go for that.

But, if government truly applied itself to providing public services in an efficient manner, there is no way the efficiency can be beat by private companies, because of the profit factor.

Well, I'm not sure what profit has to do with it in that case. If government was driven to provide the most efficient services possible, then yes, a private company couldn't beat them, it could only match them. But my whole point is that government is NOT driven to do so. In fact, they have many built in factors that make such efficiency impossible.

[halplm]

ensuring universal coverage (which only single payer does, by the way), does not ensure universal participation.

Of course it doesn't ENSURE it. But it makes it much more likely. As Yov said, cancer screenings alone. May I add to that? Mammograms. Colonoscopy. Blood pressure. Blood sugar. Pap test. Prostate tests. Thyroid exam.

All these are ROUTINE, preventative tests that need to be done on a regular basis, especially as you get older. They are tests that can help catch things early and allow them to be treated. That prevent invasive and costlier surgeries and treatments later on.

And they are tests that many people SKIP or PUT OFF because...guess why? THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!

I disagree, I would argue that they can afford it (in most cases), but they prioritize other things, because they believe they don't need it. Yes, you can tell them it's better in the long term for them to do it, their doctor can tell them, and the government can tell them... But for now at least, they still have the freedom to do other things with their money if they so choose.

What is the result of forcing them to do things the way other people believe is best for them? For some, yes, it would prevent problems. For others, well, they've just had their freedom taken away with no benefit to themselves whatsoever.

You can argue society is better for those few problems prevented, but you can't counter the argument that it's worse for the individuals that lost their freedom.

So once again, we're back to personal responsability vs. communal responsability.

[River]

Government contracts go to the lowest bidder. That translates into crap. Also, once the bid's been won, contractors often start running up the costs because there's no penalty. They've got their contract and the government is a reliable payer. It's a game to them.

[JewelSong]

I would argue that they can afford it (in most cases), but they prioritize other things, because they believe they don't need it. Yes, you can tell them it's better in the long term for them to do it, their doctor can tell them, and the government can tell them... But for now at least, they still have the freedom to do other things with their money if they so choose

Again, I really must ask you what planet you are living on. Do you have any idea how much those tests cost out of pocket? The people who cannot afford them are the people who are working, but have no health insurance and are usually living from pay-check to pay-check. What are they supposed to prioritize? Food? Housing? School supplies?

Can't afford a mammogram - choose to die of cancer.

I can't believe you're serious, Hal.