This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I disagree with making nations change their governments by the will of an outside nation.

That's ok. I'm using the LOA (qv) to wish that the people who ran Enron get to run your health care plan.

 

[skeptical]

There was no evidence that the woman was dead. That is what I mean by arbitrary. The government is restricted from taking from citizen without due process of law.

That is a strange definition of arbitrary. A mistake is usually not classified as arbitrary. I think you mean random, not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if they said everyone with her last name was getting their money taken.

There must be some malice involved for it to be arbitrary or a DP violation, something more than just a mistake.

You should get a better insurance company. What are you going to do when you have zero choice?

I already have zero choice, my employer chooses my plan and there is only one carrier. I have worked for 5 companies in my 16 years in the IT industry and I have never had a choice in health care providers. Having health care choice is an illusion for most people, they have a strong financial incentive to use whatever plan their employer has.

And, I have had 3 different HMO's and I cannot say that any of them have been any better than another anyway.

The HMO system was regulated into a behemoth by government.

So, you want _less_ regulation of HMO's? They routinely deny needed medical coverage to people who they are required to provide it to already. Do you think less regulation would solve that?

Please explain why you think government will be able to correct the problem they created.

I don't think govt created the problems. Healthcare is complicated for the simple reason that we are trying to half-ass it by using HMO's. HMO's are no less bureaucratic than a govt organization, and they have a strong profit motive to boot.

Any solution to healthcare is going to have problems, the question is what do we value more, having the maximum number of people covered, or cost?

Everyone in America can get health-care.

Are you completely out of your mind? Do you seriously not realize that an HMO can deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions?

This is a serious question, did you not know that?

On top of which, even those that qualify for coverage, often cannot afford it. There are millions of people who are above the poverty line, but cannot afford even basic coverage.

"The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.[4] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Coverage_gaps

Doesn't the government already give medicine to the elderly?

Ummmm, not really, no. Medicare and Medicaid cover some drugs at a reduced price, but not all of them. My wife just spent weeks pulling her hair out trying to figure out which plan to select for her father to make sure his prescriptions are covered, and she had to pick the least bad one.

So no, there are lots of gaps in prescription drug coverage.

How can you use this as an argument for universal health-care if it is not a reality?

Because without some drugs people will die. That seems catastrophic to me.

It seems to me that you are dramatically ignoring reality.

Of what?

You are just wrong here. The governmnet currently provides health-care to the old and the poor. The HMO system was created by government regulation.

They provide _some_ care to _some_ people. They do not provide coverage to people who are not elderly or indigent but simply cannot afford it or who are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Yes, the HMO system is a govt creation, it is a classic example of a compromise that gets half of what you want, but all the bureaucracy. If we are going to have the bureaucracy, I think we should at least have the benefits to.

You are arguing that the current system; which was created by government, can be solved by government.

I am arguing that paying a little more and making sure every single person has healthcare in a single payer system would be better than what we have now.

Why are you ignoring the facts?

What facts?

Look, there is no perfect system, there never will be. There are tradeoffs in any solution. But if we are going to trade something, don't you think we should trade in favor of getting universal coverage? I would be more than willing to pay a little more in taxes to know that my family, friends and neighbors all have health coverage. Isn't paying a little more money worth it to know no one you know or care about will ever be denied medical treatment because they cannot pay for it?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am very amused by the responses in this thread.

Ignoring facts and reality the argument is only my age, and platitudes.



There has not been one logical thought presented in this entire thread on topic outside of mine.

Only Feelings.

 

[Matthew Best]

I am very assumed by the responses in this thread.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

N.J. Woman Declared Dead By Mistake, Twice



The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account!


This is what people want to make their health-care decisions?

Why are people so afraid to care for themselves?

Medical Errors: The Scope of the Problem: An Epidemic of Errors

Make No Mistake: Medical Errors Can Be Deadly Serious

Medical errors kill tens of thousands annually, panel says


Needless to say, Jerome, you are so naive. What on Earth makes you think the private sector can do no wrong?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.

Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right.


I would encourage you to set and think. Do not succumb to the propaganda. Your argument makes zero logical sense.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Needless to say, Jerome, you are so naive. What on Earth makes you think the private sector can do no wrong?

And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?



Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I do that from time to time.

 

[Matthew Best]

Your posts are very assuming.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your posts are very assuming.

This from time to time as well, but I do not think so in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?



Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.

You have 2 choices, Jerome, government run health care or private run health care. So what were you implying?


See Tom DeLay's out of office outcome. See what consequences Enron got out of.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Re: Jerome : Uh, yes, I posted that the HMO act wasn't what you thinking it was. Please, though, continue to ignore replies you don't like.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Re: Jerome : Uh, yes, I posted that the HMO act wasn't what you thinking it was. Please, though, continue to ignore replies you don't like.

I am not trying to be rude, but your response was nonsensical.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have 2 choices, Jerome, government run health care or private run health care. So what were you implying?

The system we currently have is not one of your two choices. How is that possible if there are only two choices?

 

[SezMe]

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?

Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

Let's assume you're flying to Chicago on a half hour notice because your mother is on her death bed. You going price shopping?


Shall the government create a single payer system to fly you to Chicago?

 

[SezMe]

No. I'll get on the web and find the best combination of price and service that meets my needs.

See how easy it is to give a direct answer to a direct question, GNOME? So try again.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I think we all know now, that the GNOME isn't a friend of answering direct questions with direct answers.

 

[Rolfe]

Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right.

Can you spell "reductio ad absurdum", sweetheart?

I said that people's needs for food are all roughly similar, and that almost everybody is able to afford this basic diet. Beyond that is the luxury market. Nobody needs caviare, pate de foie gras and vintage champagne. I also pointed out that your government does provide for the few people who are unable to afford their basic dietary requirements.

I also said that people's healthcare needs are nowhere near roughly similar, leading to the inescapable fact that those whose needs are greater are frequently unable to afford these essentials. The only healthcare you don't need is your face lift.

I then asked you to explain why you thought these two situations were even remotely comparable.

Care to try again?

By the way, what propaganda? I have my healthcare requirements met free at the point of need, I perceive my tax bill to be quite reasonable, indeed modest, and I have no need to worry that any medical condition developed by me, my family or my neighbours will drive any of us into bankruptcy. That's not propaganda, sunshine, that's fact.

Rolfe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No. I'll get on the web and find the best combination of price and service that meets my needs.

See how easy it is to give a direct answer to a direct question, GNOME? So try again.

But if there was a single payer system you would have no choice.