Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Aristes]

Yeah, but I'm not against regulation anyhow. I'm pro market, but not unreservedly.

[taks]

You don't expect your health insurance to pay for your blood transfusions?

hehe... no, silly.

 

an oil change is part of normal maintenance for vehicle upkeep. so is replacing your windshield wipers, buying new tires when they wear out, etc. insurance is for the catastrophic things, like the kinds of things that result large damages that people don't want to pay out of pocket. insurance is betting against catastrophy, not an expectation of every expense being taken care of. yet, for some reason, everyone thinks we have "health insurance." sure, we expect to be guarded against the big expenses, but somehow that's transitioned into day to day maintenance, e.g., an annual checkup (an oil change). we don't have "health insurance," we have third party payers for our medical bills.

 

taks

 

edit: i should add, that's what we had years ago. people paid out of pocket for things that they could afford. insurance was only for the big ticket whammies. now that third parties pay the bill for just about everything, nobody shops around for the best buy, best doctor, or best anything. and somehow those that wear nice shoes think we have free market health care. hehe...

Edited September 15, 2009 by taks

[Gorth]

Yeah, I sort of know what you meant. It was just too good to pass up on

 

I guess the equivalent is you pay for your own annual medical checkup, vaccinations etc., but since I've skipped out on those for 25 years, it doesn't really figure in my mind as an expense

[~Di]

...edit: i should add, btw, that auto insurance is true insurance, e.g., we don't expect them to pay for our oil changes.

 

Yes, but an oil change and annual maintenance inspection does not cost nearly $5,000. That's the bill my husband racked up for an ultrasound, MRI and a couple of stress tests when he clocked an "abnormal" EKG before a minor surgical procedure earlier this year.

 

Humans cost more than cars to maintain. Much, much more.

[Theseus]

if government did not interfere with business... those lobbies, and the money they spend, would have no reason to exist. everybody is always willing to ignore the obvious it would seem, and oddly enough, that's exactly what those in power want. why? because it gives them more power over our lives.

 

taks

 

edit: i should add, btw, that auto insurance is true insurance, e.g., we don't expect them to pay for our oil changes.

There should be some distributive equality with all the liberties the rich have in this country. The economy is located within a small select few. 90 percent of the money is owned by the the top single digit percent pop. When a man can make 40X or even more then the common working man, something is rotten in denmark. Universal Healthcare is one way to help adjust the equality.

 

There has to be a balance of liberty and equality tak. That is vital. And Life is part of a part of the US's natural rights, so be it. Thank you Locke.

[Aristes]

So, one man can't make more than 40k a year than the 'common man?' Hey, Theseus, argue for UHC. In America, nothing will galvanize the opposition like your arguments. For what it's worth, I hate the very idea of the Canadian model. I would much rather have the British model, with all its warts, than a government monopoly. And rich Canadians can still come to the United States if they have the money. If they have the money, why shouldn't they?

 

...And why is it evil for one person to make more than another? If someone takes risks that pan out in a free market system, he makes more money. If someone takes risks that fail, he makes less. Hey, I have an idea, let's legislate that doctors can make no more money than unskilled field labor? We'll have a law that civil engineers can't make more than construction day laborers. ...And then, since no one can make more than another, we'll give the same amount of money to any doctor regardless of his ability.

 

I think using healthcare to lower the denominator is stupid and frightening. I don't think the SCotUS would stand for it. Saying that it's unfair for someone to pay for better healthcare is so wrongminded that I cannot properly express my disdain. The very idea is hateful and I don't think we'll end up there.

[taks]

...And why is it evil for one person to make more than another?

because it pisses off those that aren't as smart or as athletic or as good looking as those that make money. envy, jealousy, same thing.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have no problem people making more money than me. I do have a problem making more money than me at the cost of someone's life.

 

Rationing based on need is preferable to rationing based on greed.

[Meshugger]

if government did not interfere with business... those lobbies, and the money they spend, would have no reason to exist. everybody is always willing to ignore the obvious it would seem, and oddly enough, that's exactly what those in power want. why? because it gives them more power over our lives.

 

taks

 

edit: i should add, btw, that auto insurance is true insurance, e.g., we don't expect them to pay for our oil changes.

 

I agree somewhat there. As long as it is possible for companies, interests groups or associations of certain professions to get the government to subsidize, giving tax breaks or have regulatory laws to their favor, there will always be lobbyists in politics. Likewise, people from the private sector will be interested in entering politics to write laws in their favor, or politicians to enter the private sector after instantiating laws that gives them a head start. Thus, effectively turning the tip from democracy to corporatism.

 

As for healthcare insurance, i would treat that a little differently though.

[Walsingham]

No problem, Aristes. You know you don't have to smack me down with weight of reason, you can come back with a half-formed idea. It's no fail. Actually, you just reminded me I was supposed to respond to someone else and I've forgotten who.

 

Anyway, back on topic, a thought occurs regarding your high costs point:

 

- Having high costs legitimises higher premiums. Since premiums necessarily work out more profitable than costs the industry as a whole actually siphons off more cash.

 

- I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the US healthcare industry had begun to vertically integrate. Meaning insurance companies were running hospitals using teh argument that their profit incentive helped keep costs down.

 

As I say, I'm not 100% on the latter point, but I know several people work for Lloyds of London who told me the former.

 

I had another point, but we've been pretty good at trying to keep things tidy so far.

[Theseus]

So, one man can't make more than 40k a year than the 'common man?' Hey, Theseus, argue for UHC. In America, nothing will galvanize the opposition like your arguments. For what it's worth, I hate the very idea of the Canadian model. I would much rather have the British model, with all its warts, than a government monopoly. And rich Canadians can still come to the United States if they have the money. If they have the money, why shouldn't they?

 

...And why is it evil for one person to make more than another? If someone takes risks that pan out in a free market system, he makes more money. If someone takes risks that fail, he makes less. Hey, I have an idea, let's legislate that doctors can make no more money than unskilled field labor? We'll have a law that civil engineers can't make more than construction day laborers. ...And then, since no one can make more than another, we'll give the same amount of money to any doctor regardless of his ability.

 

I think using healthcare to lower the denominator is stupid and frightening. I don't think the SCotUS would stand for it. Saying that it's unfair for someone to pay for better healthcare is so wrongminded that I cannot properly express my disdain. The very idea is hateful and I don't think we'll end up there.

I typed 40X more not 40K More. In the 60's some made 11X more then the common worker, now its 40X more. Money is rapidly finding its way quicker to the rich then ever before. There needs to be a balance of equality in the united states if the rich are going to keep hording all the monopoly money.

 

people are getting screwed fatally from private insurance companies, and health insurance is double the price then many other countries, where people live longer healthier lives. sigh i feel like everyone knows this information and we just are set in our ideas. The selfish will remain so and the others will struggle. Meanwhile i have insurance, and perhaps like the Jews, Im thinking " Oh it wont ever happen to me" I wont lose my insurance or get denied coverage. Even though my premiums are already through the roof.

 

The UK does have a ssytem where you can pay for "better" healthcare even though there is universal care btw. Take care Aristes!

Edited September 15, 2009 by Theseus

[taks]

Money is rapidly finding its way quicker to the rich then ever before. There needs to be a balance of equality in the united states if the rich are going to keep hording all the monopoly money.

they are the ones that pay people, einstein.

 

people are getting screwed fatally from private insurance companies, and health insurance is double the price then many other countries, where people live longer healthier lives.

sigh... the same old tired correlation equals causation argument. do yourself a favor and study up on some basic statistics. longevity has nothing to do with our "health insurance." perhaps if the government would get out of the game and allow competition among insurance companies, we'd have cheaper rates (as well as cheaper overall healthcare). i mean, it works in every other sector. sheesh. also, given that the US is also the closest thing to a free market, there's a fair amount of support coming from our pockets for the rest of the world.

 

and, for the record, do you really think our healthcare is more expensive? silly web idiot.

 

sigh i feel like everyone knows this information and we just are set in our ideas.

because mental lightweights such as you still have a vote.

 

The selfish will remain so and the others will struggle.

is it selfish to want to keep what you earn? maybe you're just jealous. so, tell me again, who is being greedy?

 

taks

 

edit: for the record, the word is hoarde. and nobody is hoarding anything - they simply keep what they earn because it is their right to do so. the practice is called individual rights. look up the phrase and try your best to understand what exactly it means.

Edited September 15, 2009 by taks

[Moose]

edit: for the record, the word is hoarde. and nobody is hoarding anything - they simply keep what they earn because it is their right to do so. the practice is called individual rights. look up the phrase and try your best to understand what exactly it means.

 

To hoard. Think you're getting confused with horde, which is something else.

[taks]

no, i simply misspelled it, too. hoard is the word - given the statement that followed, i can't understand how anybody could think i confused its meaning.

 

taks

[Moose]

You can confuse the spelling of two words even though you might know the difference in meaning. For example their vs there. Regardless, it doesn't matter if you now know your error.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Moose

[Aristes]

I would still have rejected the 40x idea, Theseus. I dislike the idea of someone putting such a cap on folks. However, I would say that I'm not against slapping restrictions on folks who game the system. I mean, there is a system and folks do game it.

 

On the flip side, I would not have gone hostile if I had read 40x. 40k more really did bother me because 40k almost always means the difference between specialized and often expensive training in a profession. Even if the state completely paid for the education of every doctor, that would still be a massive investment of time.

 

So, yeah, I saw 40k and that was a particularly onerous number to me. Oh, and I know the system in England pretty well, so it wasn't an off the cuff remark. I actually even know the arguments between the British and Canadian systems about as well as most laymen, I would think.

 

As for you, Walsh, I'll plead a tummy ache and flee for a bit. Just wanted to make peace with Theseus when I saw what had happened.

[Wrath of Dagon]

- I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the US healthcare industry had begun to vertically integrate. Meaning insurance companies were running hospitals using teh argument that their profit incentive helped keep costs down.

 

As I say, I'm not 100% on the latter point, but I know several people work for Lloyds of London who told me the former.

Never heard of such a thing. Insurance companies have contracts with hospitals and doctors to set compensation rates.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[taks]

if there was no "system," there'd be nothing to game - we'd all get paid what the market would bear. too obvious, i guess.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

I don't know if markets have ever been free, completely, in the history of mankind. Business sectors seek the upper hand by gaining political influence by lobbying and campaign contributions, and they do this whether they are 'left alone' by government or not. In order for there to be no incentive to do so government would have to spend no money and make no laws affecting the economy. Impossible.

[Junai]

Maybe we agree more than we think. You know, Junai, we always seem to be on the other end of the issues, but that doesn't mean we always have to be. I see you as a person who is keenly concerned with social justice. You have strong beliefs. I simply cannot think we don't agree on at least some things.

I'm sure we do. In Norway people exploit the system, but we're currently blind to it b/c of the oil-reserve buffer. I guess a public system calls for honest policyholders and doctors, and a private system for honest and decent brokers. I hope you all find a good balance over there. Something that curbs the excessive corp. greed, but at the same time doesn't give you a 10% tax hike.

 

And good luck with that stomach. Ouch..

 

The socialists took home another victory in the Norwegian election yesterday. Let's hope they get something done this time. They drink coffee and talk sh*t all day long..

 

 

 

Re: Rosbjerg.; I don't know Wendell Potter's story actually. I just frequent Moyers' site because of his spirited yet unconfrontational style.

 

 

J.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Junai

[Theseus]

Lets try to keep emotions out of reasoning this through please. I dont wish to get angry at anyone.

they are the ones that pay people, einstein.

Yet more money is being printed and no more is being paid out. The democrats had to scramble to get minimum wage up a measly little bit. My name is Theseus Tak. Lets keep this civil please. I know you feel big behind your keyboard, but please come down from your tower when speaking to me if you ever want me, or anyone for that matter to listen to what you are saying.

 

sigh... the same old tired correlation equals causation argument. do yourself a favor and study up on some basic statistics. longevity has nothing to do with our "health insurance." perhaps if the government would get out of the game and allow competition among insurance companies, we'd have cheaper rates (as well as cheaper overall healthcare). i mean, it works in every other sector. sheesh. also, given that the US is also the closest thing to a free market, there's a fair amount of support coming from our pockets for the rest of the world.

and, for the record, do you really think our health care is more expensive? silly web idiot.

 

Our health care is not preventive thus everything is an emergency when we wait to the last fatal minute to fix something. When we wait that long usually we have to do the more expensive procedures. Perhaps if we had a more perfect system of medical practice based not on profit but on healing, then we could fix this problem. That is what I'm proposing. Yes i do believe health care is expensive when it is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.

 

because mental lightweights such as you still have a vote.

 

If you want to debate lets try to keep on topic. Keep the discussion meaty. Lets not get base please.

 

is it selfish to want to keep what you earn? maybe you're just jealous. so, tell me again, who is being greedy?

 

I Do not believe CEO's are worth millions of dollars a year. People are getting cheated when an excessive amount of money is being siphoned to one person at the top of the ladder. Nobody is worth 40X more in monetary value to a common working man. If this trend occurs where the rich keep getting richer our way of life as we know it will be destroyed. We all live together and effect each other. I do not think its responsible to ignore our duties to our society when our society is what brought us up. health care for all as i said is a way to disperse that money.

 

My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality. For they effect each other deeply. Sure things get messy when we let a government run public schools but much goodness has come from it. And it helps us maintain a higher level of living then otherwise. I believe A national public health care option would also help the united states also.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Theseus

[taks]

Yet more money is being printed and no more is being paid out.

...

The democrats had to scramble to get minimum wage up a measly little bit. My name is Theseus Tak. Lets keep this civil please. I know you feel big behind your keyboard, but please come down from your tower when speaking to me if you ever want me, or anyone for that matter to listen to what you are saying.

really? i think you need to take some courses in economics. you clearly do not understand how it works. the current method of simply printing money when necessary does not work, but it is socialist, not capitalist. all printing money does is devalue the existing money. simple concept. increasing the minimum wage did the same thing and resulted in fewer jobs. yeah, the people that had minimum wage jobs got a raise, if they didn't lose their job. but all those out of a job... what about them?

 

sorry, but socialists are wrong, period. basic, fundamental ideas escape believers. your first few points are ample evidence supporting my hypothesis. if you at least understood the basic concepts i'd be forgiving, but you do not.

 

Yes i do believe health care is expensive when it is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.

that was a question you obviously did not understand. the best hint I could offer is that places with universal health care may not pay out of pocket, but they pay.

 

I Do not believe CEO's are worth millions of dollars a year.

oh, you are now the arbiter of demand. such arrogance. bet you think YOU can do their job, too. d'ya think you can do my job, too?

 

People are getting cheated when an excessive amount of money is being siphoned to one person at the top of the ladder.

CEOs make only a very tiny percentage of a company's total income. even if all CEOs' salaries were reduced to zero, that would be a gain of only a few dollars per year for each employee. sigh... math aint your strong suit, either, is it?

 

Nobody is worth 40X more in monetary value to a common working man. If this trend occurs where the rich keep getting richer our way of life as we know it will be destroyed.

if you get your way and the state gets to decide what value a person's labor is, yes, life as we know it will be destroyed. hint: the LAW of supply and demand.

 

health care for all as i said is a way to disperse that money.

ah, there's the meat of your argument. you socialists think that there's only so much pie to go around and it should be spread out. you don't seem to understand the very real concept of the creation of wealth. socialism destroys wealth. if everyone becomes more wealthy, who cares if some are richer than others? i know who: those that are jealous of those that produce more and have more - that would be you. that's what it is all about: YOUR GREED!

 

My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality.

yeah, you believe in liberty: i make too much therefore i have to give to you.

 

Sure things get messy when we let a government run public schools but much goodness has come from it. And it helps us maintain a higher level of living then otherwise. I believe A national public health care option would also help the united states also.

what evidence do you have of that? hint: none.

 

a national public health care option will destroy our economy, period.

 

taks

Edited September 27, 2009 by Rosbjerg
Offensive remarks

[Walsingham]

a national public health care option will destroy our economy, period.

 

So you don't think that freeing up 7% of your GDP would be kind of handy?

[taks]

My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality.

when it's all said and done, this is the fundamental problem with your argument. you believe in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. there is no "balance between libery and equality." the equality of opportunity is liberty, the equality of outcome is tyranny.

 

taks

[taks]

So you don't think that freeing up 7% of your GDP would be kind of handy?

you're joking, right? do you actually think that going to a public health care system will cut our health care costs (7% is nearly half)? ah, walsh... i am saddened.

 

taks