The Black Ship Batrachian


A forum for the unimpressed.

Healthcare

This forum is for discussion topics in which you want no fooling around. Try to respect the integrity of other posters; avoid jokes and pointless posts.

Moderator: trillicat

Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:06 pm

In the news lately here in the USA people are having all sorts of heart attacks about the issue of healthcare. Some people would love to see socialized medicine implemented. Some just want affordable healthcare available to them regardless of whether they are employed, where they are employed, or any pre-existing conditions they may have. And others are sincerely worried about getting ripped off any more than they already feel they have been by the government.

I know many of our forum's users reside in countries with socialized healthcare. I would be interested to see what opinions you all have about the experience because most of us here are limited to either horror stories by extreme cases or Michael Moore's (highly romanticized) film Sicko for our information on things.

Just to clarify, there is currently legislation pending in the US Congress to allow for governmentally supplied health insurance with a few extra measures thrown in such as the elimination of the ability for insurance companies to discriminate against clients due to pre-existing conditions. (For example, in the current system, if a person has diabetes and lapses in health insurance coverage for any length of time, an insurance company can refuse to cover them at all or for any costs related to care for their diabetic condition.)

So, to get the ball rolling, how do each of you feel about the healthcare system in your own country?
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Leila » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:00 am

It's always amazed me that universal healthcare doesn't exist in the US (I say this knowing very little about the actual system). I grew up in a low-income working class family in quite a poor area in Tasmania, and always just assumed that the kind of healthcare available to us was just... available. Universal public healthcare has existed in Aus (in some form) since 1975, and I for one am seriously glad of that. I live on a student allowance, which doesn't really leave me rolling in cash, and if it weren't for the fact that healthcare is publicly subsidised here, I couldn't afford to visit a doctor. As it is, my local GP bulk-bills anyone with a Health Care Card (students, pensioners, low-income earners, etc), so the only thing I end up paying for is any prescription I may need. Medicare also includes the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsideses the cost of 'necessary medications'. If you hold a healthcare card, the cost of filling a prescription is further reduced (the $50 a month medication I required for 18 months cost me a grand total of $8.95/month). Basically, the way it works is that Medicare either directly funds or reimburses services provided by medical practitioners with a Medicare provider number, according to a schedule of fees. Treatment in public hospitals is fully subsidised by Medicare, but there's a huge waiting list for elective surgery.

Ostensibly, Medicare is funded by an income tax surcharge (at the moment it's 1.5%), but that comes nowhere close to actually raising the funds to cover the scheme. I remember seeing somewhere that to actually match the cost of the scheme, the rate would need to be something like 8-10%, but don't quote me on that. In 1999 the (then) Federal Government introduced a private healthcare rebate as incentive for people to move towards private health insurance. The stick associated with the carrot was a further 1% surcharge for 'high-income' households that didn't have adequate private insurance.

Personally, I really, really hope that we move away from publicly funded rebates for private health insurance. I'm really attached to the fact that we have a healthcare system which actually means that the average citizen is entitled to receive care, not receive the care they can afford. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell helps.
User avatar
Leila
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:45 am
Location: Australia

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:13 pm

I had to go to the emergency room 2 years ago while I was pregnant, and I received a bill with no information as to what I was being billed for. When I called, I was told by the woman who would process my payment that because of privacy laws she was not allowed to tell me what the "prescription" item on the bill was--and I hadn't received any medication. We had to play a guessing game until she was able to acknowledge that, indeed, the item for which I was being billed $50 was...a bag of WATER. They had catheterized me and inflated my bladder with water to do an ultrasound because I was very early in my pregnancy, and for the bag of water itself, the fee without insurance was $50USD. I thought that was bad until I found out about the overnight stay at a hospital that mother mother-in-law had. She was not in any special care and was only being kept for observation after a moderate procedure. The charge to the insurance company for her (what was essentially a hotel) stay was $44,000USD. This is ridiculous.

So, yeah, Leila, I agree...the private insurance system for healthcare is highly flawed--in large part because those with insurance are effectively already paying for the healthcare costs of those without insurance who cannot afford to pay the bill (and so they pay nothing).
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Kite in the sky » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:31 pm

I live in Canada, where i've enjoyed public healthcare since I was born, and it seems to me that the government's job is to protect it's citizens. In my opinion, a government that will let it's people suffer and die because they didn't buy insurance is the very definition of evil. I understand that the public healthcare system does not really make sense in a capitalist state with a price tag on everything, but the private healthcare system represents the commodification of human life, which I am sure no one wants.
User avatar
Kite in the sky
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:58 am

Re: Healthcare

Postby GregTheAsshole » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:09 pm

Kite in the sky wrote:In my opinion, a government that will let it's people suffer and die because they didn't buy insurance is the very definition of evil. I understand that the public healthcare system does not really make sense in a capitalist state with a price tag on everything, but the private healthcare system represents the commodification of human life, which I am sure no one wants.


It makes even little sense when the government is spending the money they do have on unpopular wars. With regards to the remark about capitalism, universal healthcare is only incongruent with a purely capitalist state, which does not exist today, and hasn't for a long, long time. The way I look at it is, if a country like Cuba, which is rated as third-world in terms of GDP/GNP, is under a strict embargo, and has not had a very easy history, can provide free healthcare to its citizens, any and every western nation should be able to do the same.
Image Image Image Image
I'm not actually Greg the asshole...
the Decadent Life
User avatar
GregTheAsshole
Pirate Ghost
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:27 pm

Re: Healthcare

Postby Leila » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:09 am

(This isn't necessarily entirely on topic, but...)
I have to say, I don't really understand why a lot of what we hear from the US seems to conflate public services with socialism. Australia isn't a socialist country, but I live on government allowance, we have a universal healthcare system, I'm only responsible for 1/3 of the cost of my degree, and I didn't even have to pay that up front (the loan's only indexed to inflation).

I found it more than a little frustrating to hear so much of the 'Obama's a socialist!' reaction during the election campaign, 'cause I'm really, really sick of the perception that any public services = socialism... and of the tendency that some Americans seem to define socialism purely in their own terms, rather than looking for a definition that's applicable in a worldwide sense. What I've heard (both in terms of stuff that's made it to the news, and from some fairly normal people I know) suggests to me that the political discussion in the US has a seriously flawed definition of what socialism actually is.
User avatar
Leila
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:45 am
Location: Australia

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:42 am

Leila wrote:(This isn't necessarily entirely on topic, but...)



Your comments are well stated and at least somewhat applicable to this topic, though this would be a better subject overall for the Politics thread. I will leave this here because it is relevant to the discussion of universal healthcare. However if you would like to start a new thread for it, seeing as the "politics" topic seems to have become the "anarchy" topic, that would be fine as well, because truly this is worth discussing in more detail.
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:38 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A "Animated" video on why the US Government needs socialized healthcare coverage. (Disclaimer: I watched with sound off, so I don't know what it sounds like.)
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:06 am

All right. So, I've been reading up on this health care issue (and every other issue) that's been going on in the US. As a citizen, I feel it's my duty to check on the government who dares call me its charge. The main thing I found I couldn't do in recent years is trust the mainstream media. Nor would I trust all of what the conservative radio shows say. I'll use the sources they claim, sure. But what I found about health care seems like... well, for lack of a better word, shit. Health insurance here is a pain. In a capitalist country, everything is. It's all about taking as much money from you as they can while giving as few services as possible. The trouble I see with the government socializing health care is on a number of different levels.

The first is that it's unconstitutional. Before you crucify me, hear me out. The name of the country is what? The United States. What does that mean? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our government, wanted this country to be a federation of states. All fifty states as a whole is too large to manage. Each state should be allowed to, and, if you read the constitution, is allowed to come up with their own plan to socialize health care. It would be far easier for each state to manage itself by itself than to further corrupt our main government with more appointments by any President. (I know it's more than enough slander already)

The second is that our representatives are LYING to us. I read the parts of the bill concerning the public and private option bullcrap they keep spewing. In order for any private insurance company to keep providing insurance, they would have to give equal or better insurance than the government would while also paying 8% of their gross income as tax. Whether or not its a reasonable percentage is beyond the point. No private insurance company is willing to do that. They would go bankrupt. Why? Well, let's put it simply. All the people they are denying care to now they would have to provide care for. They would wind up paying for a lot more with, more than likely, a smaller amount of people. They would have to crank up prices to keep up with the amount of money they are paying on services. Soon, everybody would just flop over to the public option for the lower prices, larger crowd idea.

The third reason I'll post is purely my own conjecture, so if you don't like me already, stop reading here. The government currently believes that monetizing our debt will eliminate it. They are spending more money to eliminate a debt. Does that make sense? Not to me. Especially considering every country in the past that's monetized its debt had a government collapse. Who remembers hearing about hyper-inflation in Germany after WWI? The government has tried before to implement this particular brand of healthcare. What happened to it? It was shot down.

Health care should be affordable, yes, but a reform is not what we need. The current system should be improved, not destroyed. The corruption in the system is ever-present. Unfortunately it lies where few are willing to point. Let's look at Congress and point our fingers. The fact is that more and more Americans are becoming afraid of the government, and not just because of its current figurehead. After all, Presidents aren't the ones who ratify their own decisions after 60 or 90 days. Congress declared war on a concept. While the President is willing to publicly denounce and slander people who make and spend a lot of money, two Congressman recently bought themselves private jets. Congress raises their own salaries.... Blah. I could go on for ages about it. I'll shorten the rest. Current congressmen are treating being a congressman as a career. But that ISN'T what it is. There are only so many laws you can pass before you start infringing upon rights. Presidents may speak about bills to the public, but regardless of how the public felt about the No Child Left Behind Act, CONGRESS voted it in...

All in all, the American government itself is too capitalist and corrupt to run health care as they do in other countries.

Gawd, that was long. Probably boring, too. Forgive me for that.
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Re: Healthcare

Postby GregTheAsshole » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:34 am

Shadow JiaoJiang wrote:All fifty states as a whole is too large to manage. Each state should be allowed to, and, if you read the constitution, is allowed to come up with their own plan to socialize health care. It would be far easier for each state to manage itself by itself than to further corrupt our main government with more appointments by any President. (I know it's more than enough slander already)


I agree with you that all 50 US states are too large to manage. Much too large. And at first I said to myself "Hey, this guy/gal is right, single-state health care systems could work out great!" However, I then thought of a problem with this. Let's say I live on the border of New York and Massachusetts, just on the Mass. side. I would probably go into New York state pretty often to shop, visit friends, maybe work, etc. Now let's say Massachusetts has public health care under these new laws, but New York still has private health care, and one day while visiting some friends in Albany I break my leg. I have to go immediately to the nearest hospital, where I am not covered. The amount of red tape and complicated bureaucracy I'd have to go through to try and get my state health insurance to pay the New York state hospital for my stay there would be ridiculous. People would have to start buying extra health insurance if they wanted to travel within the US, much like people often get Blue Cross when traveling internationally. I think it just makes a lot more sense to have a nationalized health care plan. Maybe it could be federally-funded, and more or less state-run, but it would have to be nation-wide.
Image Image Image Image
I'm not actually Greg the asshole...
the Decadent Life
User avatar
GregTheAsshole
Pirate Ghost
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:27 pm

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:14 pm

It would make sense for your state to front the bill. I'm probably suffering from another one of those moments where I have too much faith in humanity. Or people. But same difference. But it would make sense to have a stipulation about that in the laws written in your state. Something that says the one state will pay the other so long as you can prove you're actually a resident of that state... blah blah legal crap blah
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:48 pm

Shadow JiaoJiang wrote:The second is that our representatives are LYING to us. I read the parts of the bill concerning the public and private option bullcrap they keep spewing. In order for any private insurance company to keep providing insurance, they would have to give equal or better insurance than the government would while also paying 8% of their gross income as tax. Whether or not its a reasonable percentage is beyond the point. No private insurance company is willing to do that. They would go bankrupt. Why? Well, let's put it simply. All the people they are denying care to now they would have to provide care for. They would wind up paying for a lot more with, more than likely, a smaller amount of people. They would have to crank up prices to keep up with the amount of money they are paying on services. Soon, everybody would just flop over to the public option for the lower prices, larger crowd idea.


Did you watch the presidential address to Congress? Now I haven't read the bill itself, but what he said to Congress was that they plan was to charge this tax you mention on only the highest insurance levels.


Shadow JiaoJiang wrote: Health care should be affordable, yes, but a reform is not what we need. The current system should be improved, not destroyed.


I know you feel that it is being destroyed in the long run with the proposed plan, but technically speaking, "reform" here is the same as "improved". Healthcare costs are out of control. How can we rein them in? Add a new competitor who is not interested in profit but who can still garner a lot of clients. We're not reinventing the wheel. We're trying to make living healthy possible for as many people as possible, which means opening up doors to health insurance to those who previously had none.
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:45 pm

trillicat wrote:
Did you watch the presidential address to Congress? Now I haven't read the bill itself, but what he said to Congress was that they plan was to charge this tax you mention on only the highest insurance levels.


You'll take a political figure at his word, rather than his law? The bill is written to be ambiguous. Sure it's clear if you are looking for a particular point of view. When I read the bill I wind up taking notes and running off to go vent anger. Bills should be written clearly. I get pissed off because you see in it what you want to half of the time. It takes two, sometimes three read-throughs plus notes to figure out what they're doing.

trillicat wrote:

I know you feel that it is being destroyed in the long run with the proposed plan, but technically speaking, "reform" here is the same as "improved". Healthcare costs are out of control. How can we rein them in? Add a new competitor who is not interested in profit but who can still garner a lot of clients. We're not reinventing the wheel. We're trying to make living healthy possible for as many people as possible, which means opening up doors to health insurance to those who previously had none.


When put like that, I could almost trust it. The trouble becomes where the bill doesn't reflect what the people want OR need. I understand what you mean about reform and improve being synonymous, but the way the bill is written is terrifying. It gives the government control of the health care INDUSTRY. Not just insurance. The bill allows for a scenario like the following (but not limited to it, and it isn't a certainty. But the possibility exists, and with governments of any kind, Murphy comes knocking HARD). A man 60 or 70 years old needs a knee replacement, can afford it, and a nearby hospital has the necessary bits an pieces, a qualified individual has time enough to do the operation without seriously infringing upon treatment or care to anybody, but the board the bill creates decides the old man would only have another two years of quality life before he would need another treatment of any kind. Due to this, the board dictates the operation doesn't have to take place: give the man some pain meds and a crutch. it would be impossible to get the operation, even paying 100% of the cost himself.

Whether or not it would actually happen is a moot point, but the fact that the opportunity exists creates cause for worry. It worried me even further when Obama told Congress that the time for debate and games was over and done with, just pass the bill. It bothers me when an elected official tells the rest of them to ignore their duties as representatives and do what he wants. The less power a government has, the less it can use against you. I forget who said it, but I heard somewhere that a government that has the power to give you everything you need has also the power to take it away.
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:02 pm

Did you listen to the part of his address in which he declared that NO ONE would be denied medical care they needed? That the government would NOT be the ones to decide who gets treatment? This isn't like turning healthcare over to the judicial court system. It's insurance. Why would you think that some arbitrary board would be set up to deny someone treatment? That's completely counter to the (primary or secondary) objective of the bill.

As far as the fuzziness of the bill, which version did you read? The problem with the legislative process seems to be that we ask 3 different groups to generate the same legal document however they see fit and then try to mash them all together into a single piece. Knowing that that is the case, I can see how a fuzzily worded bill could be constructed, particularly if it were the President's version, since he would essentially be outlining what it was he wanted Congress to accomplish with their own versions.
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Gallium_Arsenide » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:01 am

As a Canadian, and as someone who needed (well, at least, really really benefitted from) two hernia operations as a kid (sucky, but definitely better to have done when you heal quickly), I am definitely a fan of socialized healthcare. That said, an election doesn't come or go in this country without some mention of too-long waiting lists, insufficient or outdated medical equipment, or the prospect of adopting a two-tiered system to alleviate some of the pressure from the overburdened public hospitals. I don't really have my finger on the pulse of medicine in this country, but I know we have some substantial problems with our system.

I haven't read the US bill, but it sounds to me like it's balancing the need for healthcare reform with that for appeasing the kind of people who foam at the mouth when you say the word "socialized". Could very well be the reason that it isn't very clearly worded; you can't come on too strong too fast with this kind of reform. Also possible that you guys don't have the ridiculously strict party line voting there that we have, so you have to make concessions to individual legislators.

On a more philosophical note, I once heard someone claim that in China, they had arranged the economic stimulus for doctors in a manner opposite to how we have it, that is to say they were paid when their patients were well, and not when they were sick. In such a way, the profit motive of the doctor was to keep their patients as well as possible as much of the time as possible. I think I looked into this sometime thereafter and couldn't find any supporting evidence (full disclosure: I may have just been lazy and only checked Wikipedia) for this claim, but it still struck me as an idea that could be parlayed into a more effective healthcare system (it also brings to mind a passage from Aristotle's Politics that I agree with, in which he argues that the primary purpose of a doctor is to produce heath, not money). Of course, this particular strategy seems best suited to GPs who have a steady and defined roster of patients, but in the case of an ER surgeon, you could pay them based on the success rate of their procedures (normalized to the risks associated with the patients and procedures, so the poor guy who gets a rash of critically wounded patients doesn't get a salary cut because he practices medicine in the middle of a turf war, or what have you). The one catch I can imagine is that not everyone follows doctors' orders, and thus a sick person who doesn't take the necessary steps toward getting well could have a detrimental effect upon a good doctor's salary. Also worth considering is the reverse case, in which a doctor might underreport illness, or perhaps try to convince non-critically ill patients that they weren't sick at all.

Off the top of my head, it might be possible to put vouchers in the hands of patients, so the flow of money from the government is directed to doctors based upon their satisfaction rate. This is a socialized system I envision, and while I'm sure it could be privatized, I think it would not be very beneficial to the system if the patients were economically encouraged (however inadvertently) to stay sick and malcontent to avoid spending money. The system has to encourage participation by even the naturally healthiest of people (so that doctors get paid for their invaluable work) and it has to encourage participation that begins at day 1, so that people don't just hold out until they are sick (which would result in more or less the same payment structure we have now).

The fringe benefits of a pay-when-you're-healthy system are that it would encourage an awful lot of preventative healthcare, and that it could encourage some serious progress on early detection technology. Not too shabby, even as a thought experiment when one considers the ultimate aim of any healthcare system.
Image
User avatar
Gallium_Arsenide
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:13 am

I don't recall seeing a list of versions anywhere, so I'll have to look around to find out if there actually are different versions.

One thing I've had a problem with in the past are all these bills that get passed in Congress that are made with Good Intentions. Because the law and governments don't have these. Good intentions are solely people-oriented: for people, by people (and for critters, to a much lesser extent). If a bill is written granting any organization any powers purely on what good it can do, it may allow for a much greater harm to be done. Take the CPS for example. Created for good, but does more harm than will ever be truly recorded. (That's what happens when you pay people to just have a case open on some form of child abuse where the child has been removed from home.) Governments were never something to be trusted. Read the Constitution and it becomes clear as day. Give any government the opportunity to turn its back on its people and there will be no hesitation. The Constitution was formed the way it was so that there would be close to no chance of any one branch of government to gain more power than it should rightly have.

My point is that whenever a bill is presented to Congress there is a citation near the beginning stating from which Article in the Constitution it derives its power to vote on the bill to become law. No such citation exists. Not because there is no stipulation for health care in the Constitution, but because there is no place in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to require that every citizen should void their rights against unwarranted search and seizure. There is no place in the Constitution that allows for Congress to give an unprecedented amount of power to the Executive Branch of the government.

Quit wasting your time listening to politicians, to lobbyists. Quit accepting what anybody says about the bill. Read it. Conservatives radio hosts don't say to read the bill for yourself because they haven't read it. They say it because every citizen should. It is their duty as a citizen to be sure, it is your duty as a citizen to be sure that your Senators and your State Representatives are doing their duties and upholding what is best for the people, not their pockets.

Yes, insurance should be affordable. No hospital can deny you care. That is the law and the nature of a hospital. Even if you can't afford it. But insurance should be affordable. It is the only humane thing to do. But the way it's being proposed is [i[not[/i] what it will actually do. This bill is about expanding the powers of the government. Not about the welfare of every citizen in the country.

Besides, there is no stipulation in the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate health care or health-related industries. However, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not given to the United States (as a whole, they mean.) is given to the States individually, or to the people. So let the People decide on it. Forget Congress, they're filling their own pockets anyway.
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Re: Healthcare

Postby Almost Me » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:03 pm

Shadow, you seem to be against any more government control than there is right now, but what about if there was simply a government insurance option? With how much debt the US is in, it would be forced to run at a profit, or go even farther into debt, in which case the private run companies could still undercut it, and remain competitive.
Everything I know about waxing cars, I learned from Mr. Miyagi.
Image
User avatar
Almost Me
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:56 pm

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:50 am

Almost Me wrote:Shadow, you seem to be against any more government control than there is right now, but what about if there was simply a government insurance option? With how much debt the US is in, it would be forced to run at a profit, or go even farther into debt, in which case the private run companies could still undercut it, and remain competitive.


State governments, yes. Far easier to manage one state at a time. But then comes the complications of actually writing the bills so they make sense without totally screwing the little guy when he visits another state.

Thing is, the United States is just the basic underlayer of what each state is. In addition to federal laws there are state laws, and county laws and so on. The federal government shouldn't be the one supplying ANY insurance plan. Regulating insurance is fine. Requiring that insurance companies have some qualified individuals In the medical field have at least something to do with helping insurance companies set their coverage rates would make sense and be beneficial. Regulation is fine when it comes to the government.

The government has proved its inability to do anything right. Look at the way our veterans are taken care of. Look at Social Security. Until the government solves the problems it has caused it needs to be more laissez-faire. Fix the health care issue (it's really more of an insurance issue: Hospitals can't deny care) after the government has demonstrated it can fix what problems it has already created.

Let's fix Congress, do our best to manage the debt that has been incurred in the last year alone, and let the States settle it individually. That's what state legislature is there for. I've come to like the idea of the United States; let's not trash it by making the federal government control every aspect of society.
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Re: Healthcare

Postby trillicat » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:06 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&em

Given that the US is becoming bankrupt as a result largely of a highly unpopular war (against a concept, no less) and the government having to foot the bill for people who default because of insufficient healthcare coverage...it seems on reasonable that some action must be taken to stabilize the union. The purpose of government is to serve the people. As a country largely full of people who worship a zombie from a couple millennia ago, it's certainly conceivable that we can alter a constitutional contract written in archaic times to serve the will of the modern citizenry whose existence shares little in common with the nation's forefathers.
User avatar
trillicat
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Healthcare

Postby Shadow JiaoJiang » Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:00 am

trillicat wrote:
Given that the US is becoming bankrupt as a result largely of a highly unpopular war (against a concept, no less) and the government having to foot the bill for people who default because of insufficient healthcare coverage...it seems on reasonable that some action must be taken to stabilize the union. The purpose of government is to serve the people. As a country largely full of people who worship a zombie from a couple millennia ago, it's certainly conceivable that we can alter a constitutional contract written in archaic times to serve the will of the modern citizenry whose existence shares little in common with the nation's forefathers.



Yes, but it was also Congress' idea to declare war on a concept. It was also Congress' job to ratify the President's decision after 90 days when he sent the troops to Iraq to begin with. They agreed with it. And even with all that in mind, the national debt has tripled in the last nine months alone. That's what happens when we decide to monetize debt. How our leaders thought that we wouldn't follow the path of every other government that monetized its debt and crumbled, I don't know.

Feh, the Constitution is a lot more versatile than what you're implying. The Constitution, when abided by, outlines a brilliant system of government that would serve well. If it was abided by. But our state governments seem to have forgotten that they have the power to write and pass laws that affect the regulation of health insurance and health care, thereby ensuring that one area that needs a certain law has it.

The reason our forefathers broke away from Wee Britain in the first place was because they had representation in Parliament that didn't know or care about their actual needs. The same thing would happen if we allow the federal government to just pass laws and pass laws until doomsday. A law that would be just and necessary in Maine is not necessarily going to apply the same way in every state. Different folks, different strokes. Why would States be any different?

Yes, health care needs to be improved. But we can't expect a program written specifically for Linux to work when it's run on Windows. That is, the socialist solution for health care may not be the only solution, and it isn't guaranteed to work in what is supposed to be a free trade, free enterprise, capitalist country.
ImageImage
Almost Me wrote:Let it be known that Jiao is good at drinking and looking pretty
User avatar
Shadow JiaoJiang
Jim Lad
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am
Location: the seas of shattered hopes and dreams, and somewhere in between.

Next

Return to Quorum (Serious Discussions)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron