Obama vs. Clinton: Healthcare Debate

Nevermind wrote:

Things are going to be awesome when we have universal healthcare and they take the money for it straight out of your checks.

time to get a contract labor job.......

Hehe...so much controversy over what to do with other peoples' jobs and other peoples' choices.

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will do anything to address the existing and coming shortages of available health care workers. Both plans, over time, are likely to exacerbate these problems.

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will do much to lower the cost of healthcare. They'll simply shift those costs to the wealthy and businesses.

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will address the fundamental problem with insurance -- the fact that you can't take out more than you put in even though you can pretend to.

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will help diversify the healthcare offerings in this country, something the market desperately needs. Their plans will simply further concentrate the special interests and government influence over how medicine is delivered.

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will stem the influence of the state over private health choices. They will put the state in a position where it must further regulate choice in order to control costs.

In short, both plans are a continuation of what has been happening in the healthcare market in this country over the last 60 years -- more concentration of influence, less emphasis on care and value, and less competition and innovation. Go ahead and keep looting this market and see where you end up.

It doesn't matter though. Neither plan will be the actual plan, once either of these people get into office.

soulsinging wrote:

perhaps, but i dont see many people offering valid alternatives becos most alternatives would hurt special interests.

Any plan is going to reflect the interests of "special interests". That's the whole point of having a political plan. I find it funny that when a drug company gets some shitty legislation passed you hear the words "special interest" but when the poor get some shitty legislation passed you only hear the word "people".

ok by me. and i'll be one of the wealthy.

Hehe...then pay for all the healthcare you'd like! No one is telling you not to pay for someone else's healthcare.

i agree with that. the insurance industry in general seems to me to be rotting and corrupt.

Very much so. The irony of these plans is that they make the statement "insurance companies have been harming health care" and then their solution is to either create 1 giant insurance company or to ensure that the existing insurance companies have to become even more corrupt.

got any alternative to achieve this?

Absolutely. Get rid of the FDA. Get rid of all the specific government mandates that define "doctor" or "healthcare provider" or "insurance company". Allow individuals and companies to compete to fit the varying demands of the market.

cos your "never interfere with a business decision" ideology creates the kind of hegemony and monopoly practices that kill diversity.

Yet as government has gotten more and more involved in healthcare over the last two generations, the hegemony has accelerated and the entire thesis of both these plans is to establish a new level of hegemony and monopoly. Your logic does not hold up.

i think the poor would say they'd rather have limited choices than no choices or coverage at all.

Absolutely! Then start a government plan that you and anyone who thinks like you may contribute to.

you think reverting to unchecked and totally unregulated practices is going to increase care and value? you're going to get corrupt doctors cutting corners to maximize profits and the poor folks will be the ones to pay the costs in terms of their lives and limbs.

That's odd. Isn't the entire thesis behind universal healthcare that this is already happening???? The healthcare market in this country is already more public than it is private. So how is it possible that things are worse then ever?

michaelcassio wrote:

then could you give me a link to a site or message board where facts are presented? thanks.

http://www.raptureready.com

soulsinging wrote:

people don't have "special" interests. they have varying interests in varying topics. the ONLY interests drug companies have is profits from drugs. the poor are not so singular in their needs, so their interests cannot be defined as special.

Hehe...so "varying interests" are not special interests? Certainly drug companies have an interest in profit. Patients, in this context, have an interest in health. Both are "varying interests" and both are special interests.

i can't afford it all. lucky for the poor, you can help me out

Lucky for the poor you're going to force me. Please don't fool yourself into believing it is "help".

this just, again, shifts the costs to the poor, who do not have the resources to expose quack doctors. it's like when coke started selling expired cans in the ghetto to hedge losses... they knew those people couldn't fight back. removing all accountability is not a solution.

Removing all accountability??? You already identified the accountability above: profit from willing purchasers to willing sellers. Systems of force remove all accountability. If I'm forced to buy your product at your chosen rate, what accountability is there?

the stock market crash post-1920's called. they said lasseiz-faire didn't work.

Huh? You think the 1920's were "lasseiz-faire"???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes

You should remind yourself that severe governmental control of the economy began in earnest in 1863 which, if you're keeping track, predates "post-1920s".

that's not how democracy works dude. we're all in this together. majority rules. you don't like it, buy your own island somewhere.

I can just throw that right back at you. If you don't like the current health care system, too bad. I mean, "we're all in this together". If you don't like it, buy your own island somewhere.