|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 2, 2012 15:06:00 GMT -8
Some think our health care system will work better if it's run by the government. (Let's be clear on this point; If the government sets all the rules and designs the health insurance policies that can be offered to the public, it's essentially socialized medicine.) Others, including your humble servant, believe that the free market is more likely to provide a better quality of care at reasonable prices One big difference between those two viewpoints is as follows: If the socialized medicine people win, there will never be any turning back. Even if the new system turns out to be overly expensive with a worse quality of care, too bad. No possible combination of circumstances will be enough to overcome the demagoguery that will enable the pro-government forces to defeat any proposal to radically change, much less dismantle, the government system of health care once that is in place. On the other hand, if my side prevails, it would always be possible later to change the system. In the article I am recommending to you some important ObamaCare-related questions are asked. blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/31/health-care-in-ma-is-bad-omen-for-obamacare/AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Aug 2, 2012 15:10:45 GMT -8
It's not completely socialist until you have a single payer system.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 2, 2012 16:05:16 GMT -8
Our system was already failing, William.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 2, 2012 16:22:39 GMT -8
It's not completely socialist until you have a single payer system. A single payer system could work and still not be socialist if that payer is not the Federal Government managed by wastrels. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 3, 2012 13:40:06 GMT -8
Our system was already failing, William. Really? Failing? The whole system, failing for everyone, everywhere, all the time? No, I think it is inaccurate to make that statement. The system has many problems, not a few of which were caused by government action in the first place. However, trying to solve those problems with an outrageously complicated and problematic reform that would make a Rube Goldberg "invention" look like a model of smooth running efficiency was the wrong way to go. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2012 14:08:23 GMT -8
Our system was already failing, William. Really? Failing? The whole system, failing for everyone, everywhere, all the time? No, I think it is inaccurate to make that statement. The system has many problems, not a few of which were caused by government action in the first place. However, trying to solve those problems with an outrageously complicated and problematic reform that would make a Rube Goldberg "invention" look like a model of smooth running efficiency was the wrong way to go. AzWm William, when our country spends more than any other, measured by percent of GDP, or by per person, than any other country, and our healthcare outcomes are worse, that is system failure. As Romney pointed out in Israel the Israeli health care system cost half as much as ours and got better results than ours. Why do conservatives want to pay more and get less? Always been a mystery to me. William, your first three sentences are plain stupid. I said none of that. I will not let you put words in my mouth. It is what conservatives like to do, though. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 3, 2012 14:53:10 GMT -8
Really? Failing? The whole system, failing for everyone, everywhere, all the time? No, I think it is inaccurate to make that statement. The system has many problems, not a few of which were caused by government action in the first place. However, trying to solve those problems with an outrageously complicated and problematic reform that would make a Rube Goldberg "invention" look like a model of smooth running efficiency was the wrong way to go. AzWm William, when our country spends more than any other, measured by percent of GDP, or by per person, than any other country, and our healthcare outcomes are worse, that is system failure. As Romney pointed out in Israel the Israeli health care system cost half as much as ours and got better results than ours. Why do conservatives want to pay more and get less? Always been a mystery to me. William, your first three sentences are plain stupid. I said none of that. I will not let you put words in my mouth. It is what conservatives like to do, though. Outcomes worse? Be careful with that one. If I am not mistaken, when you control for accidental death and violent crime, our outcomes are NOT worse, especially with respect to some types of cancer. Also, when one looks at some other countries (Netherlands, Sweden for example), you are dealing with smaller populations with much less ethnic variation. Also, why do so many wealthy people, such as Saudi royal family members, come to the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere in the U.S. rather than going to French or British hospitals? Yes, we have lots of problems. One is the outrageous malpractice insurance policies that our doctors much pay for. The Democrats, obedient servants of the trial lawyers as they are, pointedly ignored that problem when they designed ObamaCare. Bottom line; having the government run the health care system will result in worse care at much higher costs. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 3, 2012 21:09:39 GMT -8
Here are some interesting responses found after the article I have drawn to your attention. They are lengthy, but worth reading. As usual, I do not endorse the views of those who contributed these responses, but I do feel that they may be of interest in this discussion.
What name says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:27 pm
There is a simple fix to the healthcare problems. Make health insurance like car insurance. Car insurance does NOT cover maintenance and neither should health insurance! Health insurance should only cover accidents, emergencies and if you come down with a chronic condition but only if you maintain insurance. If you drop it, like car insurance, you go into a high risk pool and pay a lot more for 3 years! If you want pregnancy insurance, you add the rider and pay extra, if you want mental health insurance, you add a rider and pay extra, if you want prescription, you add a rider and pay extra! Just remember, if you add pregnancy AFTER you are pregnant you go into the high risk pool.
If insurance didn’t pay for routine doctors visits and extras like dermatologist and hair plugs, it would be much cheaper. And don’t even give me the argument that if insurance didn’t pay, people wouldn’t have checkups. So you are saying when someone’s tires pop they don’t get new tires? Or when their brakes are done they dont get new brakes? Come on! People need to take responsibility for theirselves, stop giving them everything! People should be paying for their own doctor visits with cash. Most of these same people pay their dogs vet bills!
================================================================
ibeeducky says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm
In the mid 1990s Washington State passed legislation that all residents were eliglble for healthcare. The immediate result was that all the health insurance companies left the State. (Another potential possibility is that people moved to Washington to get health insurance…I have no actual facts to support that one way or another.)
Thus the State had to create their Basic Healthcare program. Families like mine were forced into it as our insurance company moved out. Ee payed full premiums however, but many families most likely met some kind of subsidizing. To get the health insurance companies back into the State, a questionnaire was developed..if someone went over 200 points of the questionnaire, they had to go into a high risk pool..Washington State ultimately did some good for healthcare.
All obamacare has done is increase premiums more than had been occurring. I changed my plan last year to avoid a $60+/mo increase…this year I am not so fortunate. A $54/mo an increase and switching out to a $5000 yearly deductible vs the $2000/yr deductible isn’t worth it.
Obamacare is a disaster in the making.
==========================================================
Chris says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:11 pm
With all the talk of ‘skyrocketing healthcare costs,’ why isn’t there similar caterwauling over ‘skyrocketing medical school expenses?’ It seems that the left wants doctors to do their job for free…sans ‘profit.’ Yet the left is silent over the cost to get a medical degree. No one believes that ‘Big Academe’ is benevolent and profit-free themselves, so why the selective outrage by the left over ‘skyrocketing costs?’ Why isn’t the attempt to ‘rein in’ health care costs coupled with a similar effort to ‘rein in’ the cost to get a medical degree? Well, we know why. The Left is in bed with ‘Big Academe’ and that’s where all their ‘friends’ are.
At some stage, the real ‘pain’ will come when that annual physical you could depend on will come every two or even three years. Why? For two reasons. First, the crack-addicted woman who now can get her ‘free’ health care just slid in front of you in line. Then her daughter slid in front of you. And then her boyfriend. You’re no different than those crack-addicted layabouts. Welcome to ‘fairness.’
Second, the supply of doctors will go down while the demand for their services will go up. Doubt me? If you’re contemplating a medical degree, you’re first realizing that it’s a half-million-dollar expense to get it. Once out with your newly-minted degree, you’re told to ‘give away’ your services to the ‘needy.’ How unfair of you to ask for a lot of money for your services. So, you decide that if this is your world, maybe you’ll become a violinist. Or an airline pilot. Or a chef. The left doesn’t see this train coming, but it’s on its way. Will government have to ‘force’ people to enter the field of medicine? Will they need to implement a ‘draft’ so that there will be someone to take care of that crack-addicted woman (and her whole family) who just got their ‘fair’ place in line?
========================================================================
rpm says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Back in the mid 70′s, when insurance mostly was just that, insurance, my company had a pretty good year or two. We were pretty health oriented, for the times. Middle management and up got an annual first class physical at company expense; membership at the health club across the street was company paid. We ran smoking cessation programs on site.
We wanted to pass on some of the good results. So–we signed up for a first class health insurance program. More like a “Cadillac” PPO of today. Basically, you could go to any MD, little or no co-pay. Company picked up all of the increased premium for the Cadillac plan; employees share was pretty minimal. I think about $50/mo/family.
It was wildly popular. My family never went to the MD that year–at that time of my life if I saw a MD (other than the mandatory annual physical) once every five years or so it was a lot.
Then, at the end of the first year–we got the new premium rates. The CEO went ballistic. Called in the Insurance big wigs. They brought in redacted medical records. We had people that essentially lived in the waiting room. After looking at the facts, the boss stayed ballistic, but his ire went from the insurance company–who just paid the bills–to anonymous members of our employee group.
We held a couple “focus groups” as to whether people would be willing to pay the extra (large) freight, or go back to the old plan. We went back to the old plan.
This was about 2000 people. Extrapolate to 330M.
What amazes me is that people that hate and distrust the insurance companies (who, by the way are not especially profitable) are quite willing to turn their health care over to unelected and unaccountable insurance companies. If you don’t like the insurance company, or the plan it provides, you can change. Changing governments, while lovely to think about, is much harder. Ask the short lived CSA (1861-1865).
================================================
pottfullofpith says:
August 2, 2012 at 5:50 pm
“This is not because governments can never do anything right, but because the American political system works the way it does.” It might be more useful to note that, once started, it is nearly impossible to get government to stop doing anything, right, wrong or pointless. Even if they start out well, when circumstnaces change, they are unable to change along with them. Very hard to turn Leviathan, takes miles to slow it down or stop it.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2012 21:32:05 GMT -8
William, when our country spends more than any other, measured by percent of GDP, or by per person, than any other country, and our healthcare outcomes are worse, that is system failure. As Romney pointed out in Israel the Israeli health care system cost half as much as ours and got better results than ours. Why do conservatives want to pay more and get less? Always been a mystery to me. William, your first three sentences are plain stupid. I said none of that. I will not let you put words in my mouth. It is what conservatives like to do, though. Outcomes worse? Be careful with that one. If I am not mistaken, when you control for accidental death and violent crime, our outcomes are NOT worse, especially with respect to some types of cancer. Also, when one looks at some other countries (Netherlands, Sweden for example), you are dealing with smaller populations with much less ethnic variation. Also, why do so many wealthy people, such as Saudi royal family members, come to the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere in the U.S. rather than going to French or British hospitals? Yes, we have lots of problems. One is the outrageous malpractice insurance policies that our doctors much pay for. The Democrats, obedient servants of the trial lawyers as they are, pointedly ignored that problem when they designed ObamaCare. Bottom line; having the government run the health care system will result in worse care at much higher costs. AzWm Yes, health outcomes worse. You could look it up very easy. I have posted links for years. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2012 6:46:21 GMT -8
Outcomes worse? Be careful with that one. If I am not mistaken, when you control for accidental death and violent crime, our outcomes are NOT worse, especially with respect to some types of cancer. Also, when one looks at some other countries (Netherlands, Sweden for example), you are dealing with smaller populations with much less ethnic variation. Also, why do so many wealthy people, such as Saudi royal family members, come to the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere in the U.S. rather than going to French or British hospitals? Yes, we have lots of problems. One is the outrageous malpractice insurance policies that our doctors much pay for. The Democrats, obedient servants of the trial lawyers as they are, pointedly ignored that problem when they designed ObamaCare. Bottom line; having the government run the health care system will result in worse care at much higher costs. AzWm Yes, health outcomes worse. You could look it up very easy. I have posted links for years. I fail to understand how you can not recognize that although we need reform, that ObamaKare just makes outcomes worse and costs higher. Blind ideology combined with marginal intelligence defines obamakare advocates. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Aug 4, 2012 7:56:36 GMT -8
It's not completely socialist until you have a single payer system. You're not really dead until your heart stops, even though you got shot 12 times, and have six knives stuck in your torso. The game isn't over until the final buzzer, even though the half time score is, 100-2. You really haven't been charged with a crime, even though you have been held in the OC Jail for six months awaiting arraignment. You really haven't smelled the roses until you work at a nursery. The red communists are really nice people.  Careful smoker breathe, your words don't really avoid the portent of the future death and dismemberment of the US medical industry. HAM Tax/th PL TL |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Aug 16, 2012 13:06:14 GMT -8
It's not completely socialist until you have a single payer system. You're not really dead until your heart stops, even though you got shot 12 times, and have six knives stuck in your torso. The game isn't over until the final buzzer, even though the half time score is, 100-2. You really haven't been charged with a crime, even though you have been held in the OC Jail for six months awaiting arraignment. You really haven't smelled the roses until you work at a nursery. The red communists are really nice people. Careful smoker breathe, your words don't really avoid the portent of the future death and dismemberment of the US medical industry. HAM Tax/th PL TL So lets keep a broken system running the way it is until it completely breaks down instead of fixing it, right? |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 16, 2012 14:16:37 GMT -8
You're not really dead until your heart stops, even though you got shot 12 times, and have six knives stuck in your torso. The game isn't over until the final buzzer, even though the half time score is, 100-2. You really haven't been charged with a crime, even though you have been held in the OC Jail for six months awaiting arraignment. You really haven't smelled the roses until you work at a nursery. The red communists are really nice people. Careful smoker breathe, your words don't really avoid the portent of the future death and dismemberment of the US medical industry. HAM Tax/th PL TL So lets keep a broken system running the way it is until it completely breaks down instead of fixing it, right? You can fix it by taking the lawyers out of it and using arbitrators and set fees. And we have to quit servicing illegals. Simple enough but the trial lawyers(whom a lot are congressmen) won;t do it. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Aug 16, 2012 16:23:20 GMT -8
So lets keep a broken system running the way it is until it completely breaks down instead of fixing it, right? You can fix it by taking the lawyers out of it and using arbitrators and set fees. And we have to quit servicing illegals. Simple enough but the trial lawyers(whom a lot are congressmen) won;t do it. That's political suicide too. Sad thing about our political system is often the better ideas or those that require compromise where both sides actually benefit are seen as political death. |
|
