Socialized Healthcare?

gabers wrote:

I realize you really really love these "stuff white people like" links, and they're kind of funny, but really, can we just change it to "stuff liberals like" to be more accurate? I'm thinking this is your way of making fun of things. Do you have your own ideas on this issue?

Absolutely.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=113995

Excellent point! Well done.

But he did move from Chicago to Seattle so that he could be by the water (ref: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/51-living-by-the-water/), so they offset.

farfromglorified wrote:

Simple - cut the military budget in half. That'll pay for it all, and then some. Until of course you've increased demand to such a point that prices get even worse, you have to cap them, and then you eviscerate the system as a whole. But, hey, there's nothing wrong with shortsightedness when it comes to big government.

That's probably an easy focus for an A paper too.

Nothing like finding out what they think and regurgitating it.

scb wrote:

Seems like if they got rid of the insurance companies altogether that would save a LOT of money.

Not particularly. Insurance company profits represent a small percentage of overall dollars in the system (< 10%).

Not only would we not have to pay the salaries of all the insurance company employees & CEOs, but hospitals would no longer need to employ all they people whose sole job is to deal with & figure out the insurance companies.

That's right! But don't forget that you have to replace them with bureaucrats that can never be fired within agencies that do nothing but grow.

And of course if the money people currently spend on premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, medication, etc. went more directly into healthcare instead of being going toward the profit of insurance companies, that would really add up.

That's silly. People would then be spending money not "directly into healthcare" but rather directly into a bureaucracy whose mandate would be to supply healthcare. There's a difference, and that difference is more dangerous in the long run than insurance company profits.

Additionally, people who have healthcare more readily available will be more likely to take preventative measures that will lower the incidence of more complicated and costly remedies. That's my $0.02 anyway.

Why would you ever think people would be "more likely to take preventative measures" when you just removed any financial reason to do so??? The only way people will do this is if you also force them to do it.

P.S. I just calculated that I spend $2160/year just for premiums - just for myself - and I have the cheapest available insurance, and I work at a HOSPITAL! And that doesn't include medication, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, or my tax money that already pays for Medicaid. $5000 for a family of 4 really does sound good to me.

It's not "$5000". It's $5000 for you + thousands more for other people who have to pickup the tab for you.

Kann wrote:

Well obviously. A world without problems is not exactly what we're having in the near future. But getting rid of several major problems by increasing an already existing problem is not irrational.

It's not irrational at all. That is until you start to realize that all the world's problems stem from someone deciding that their values justify a given injustice.

In other words, the antithesis to injustice is justice, not just a different injustice.

Kann wrote:

This is true on every side for everyone everywhere. Maybe in a world of absolutes "the antithesis to injustice is justice, not just a different injustice", but this is not something we're bound to witness.

All truths are witnessed. That's what makes them truths.

Now I know I can't prove that the value "save human lives" is relatively more just than "save my money", but I'll think about how to do that.

That's easy to prove. Without "human life" there is no "my money". The value of a prerequisite always exceeds the value of the corresponding condition.

Regardless, proving that the value of "Bob's life" has a greater value than "Joe's money", however, is simply a false proposition. Bob's life and Joe's money are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

On the subject of funding, don't you think that by having a uhc you'll make the health related costs go down? :
1- the government accepts to pay a limited amount for a given service, for everyone. Let's say for example 20$/exam.
2- the vast majority (the middle class I guess) will give up their insurance and use the uhc and will have to stick to that 20$ limit when choosing the dr they want to see.
3- given the high demand for 20$ exam more and more dr/hospitals will propose this fare thus lowering the general cost.

A sane UHC system will make certain prices go down in the near future, yes. But prices, over the long term, are not based on who is paying for services. Prices are dependent on supply and demand. UHC increases demand and at the same time often negatively affects supply. So, in the long term, you're going to increase costs. When this happens, UHC will have to set prices, like in your example above. Setting prices doesn't necessarily set costs. It simply masks who is paying them. Your eye exam may only be priced at $20 via UHC, but you may end up suffering the cost of no one being left to give you an eye exam or someone else will be made to suffer the $x deficit over and above $20.

mammasan wrote:

First off let me start by saying that every man, woman and child should have health coverage. It is a shame that in this day and age with all the money this country has that there are hard working families out there that do not have health benefits. With that being said the last thing I want to see is our inept government handling healthcare. Look at the mess they made of the prescription drug plan, look at the way veteran's healthcare is handled, look at the amount of mismanagment in welfare programs. If our government where to undertake the task of providing universal healthcare to all of our citizens it would end up becoming a monsterous fiscal black hole. Before we even begin to tackle the task of universal healthcare we need to change the way Washington does business.

The government is inept because it is corrupt and the people aren't holding it accountable. UHC could work if people took an active role in civics, became aware of all that is going on in their democratic government and held their elected officials accountable when they weren't doing their jobs. If the government is inept then replace them with people who will do the job to a more satisfactory extent....if those guys become corrupt, they get the boot, too...just like any job a person holds. If the government officials want to keep their job then they better start doing it right.

Of course this isn't what's happening now. People remain more than willing and happy to excuse acts of neglect, corruption and pandering to special interests as long as it's their team who is in power. The people need to start coming together and seeing it as our duty to make sure the government is doing right by it's citizens and stop settling for watered down crap over straight crap.

mammasan wrote:

I agree with you, but until this is actually achieved Universal Healthcare will not work in this country.

Yes, it's up to us.

And from the looks of things...we would have to start changing our lives and our priorities drastically. We have to be active in making this country great not just saying how we have all these things going on in our own lives and don't have time for it. That's a cop out. If you want things to be better you don't just sit back, complain and expect other people to do it for you...you have your part to play, too.

lazymoon13 wrote:

its examples like this why nadar is a fucking moron. taxing stock transactions is the worst idea in history. do that and watch how fast people stop trading stocks here.

you think ppl would stop trading stocks over less than 1%??? i wouldn't think so, but it's just my opinion.

lazymoon13 wrote:

another bonehead thing to do. these countries and systems can not and should not be compared. we are 10 times larger. canada's population is smaller then california. the system in America can definitely use some changes no doubt about it

ah, that sounds a little bit defeatist, what happened to 'YES WE CAN!!!!!!!' ???



what kind of system or candidate's health care plan do you like and support?

some good reading
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-03.htm
Universal Health Plan is Endorsed
Thousands of doctors back proposal in Journal of the American Medical Association

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

# Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.