Seriously thoughtful American Health Care

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I hear you. But I hold out one (very) small hope that Medicare struggles to stay solvent because it is a government run program amidst a larger free market health care system. I can imagine that it doesn't reap all the benefits of lower insurance costs and maybe of lower costs in general. Perhaps (I confess that I'm reaching here, so don't beat me up) that if the majority of health care was a federally run system, those benefits might be gained.

Next up, I'll recite from the tale of the Easter bunny.

I'm not going to beat you up. :scritch:behind:doggie's

The government is not using the big bad insurance companies, they are the insurance company. The providers have been squeezed for years, to the point to where some providers don't consider it worth their while to even handle the patients. And still the costs are out of control.

Seriously, if it worked, I'd say just expand it to everybody. But it isn't, so I can't see the long-term improvement over the existing system of the new system. I can't see it more being more efficient, in toto, I just see providers being squeezed further on all their patients. Then they'll leave, or worse not even go into medicine, and it'll spiral downward, with politicians pointing fingers, taking bri... excuse me, getting campaign contributions, and acting like there's some magic wand to make all the troubles go away.

Shrug. That's not what most people want to hear...

[derrell]

Originally Posted by formerroadie

It would actually make medicare solvent and in the black while the rest of us would get lower health care costs due to a larger pool of people being able to negotiate price. It's a misgnomer that the government has done such a poor job. My grandparents are (were) on medicare and they got great care.

Originally Posted by formerroadie

Yes, part of the plan is to make price uniform. This is one of the huge problems with the system. It's also another reason why states should not run this individually.

Ok I've stayed out of this because there really is no point arguing about it at MR. This one caught my eye though. You can't argue that single payer will allow a better position to negotiate price and turn around and say that part of the plan is to mandate prices. That isn't negotiation, the healthcare providers will either accept what they are offered or quit providing healthcare. There isn't any other choice.

To the folks from outside the U.S. who wonder about the furor, the reason that this causes such an uproar here has been mentioned in another thread. Taking control of healthcare is seen as a huge step inside of what many consider personal boundaries that government no matter how well intentioned has no business being involved in. I've seen the long list of other socialized programs that we have no problem with, thats not entirely true at least some of us do have problems with them. We see the slow creep of government control into every part of our lives and we have serious reservations about where it will end. Healthcare is just a flashpoint that tends to set enough people off that it is finally noticeable.

[formerroadie]

Originally Posted by derrell

Ok I've stayed out of this because there really is no point arguing about it at MR. This one caught my eye though. You can't argue that single payer will allow a better position to negotiate price and turn around and say that part of the plan is to mandate prices. That isn't negotiation, the healthcare providers will either accept what they are offered or quit providing healthcare. There isn't any other choice.

To the folks from outside the U.S. who wonder about the furor, the reason that this causes such an uproar here has been mentioned in another thread. Taking control of healthcare is seen as a huge step inside of what many consider personal boundaries that government no matter how well intentioned has no business being involved in. I've seen the long list of other socialized programs that we have no problem with, thats not entirely true at least some of us do have problems with them. We see the slow creep of government control into every part of our lives and we have serious reservations about where it will end. Healthcare is just a flashpoint that tends to set enough people off that it is finally noticeable.

Sorry, I must have misspoken. It's not what I meant about price. First, it's not single payer. It's an option and the prices would be set in the government option, not all the others. They would have to compete as they see fit.

I understand people's concerns, but, for the most part, many of the countries in this world that have this do quite well. Is it perfect? no. Anything involving humans will never be perfect .

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Kostas

Well, we admired the outstanding results of privately managed banks, car manufacturers,... Most of them have been saved of bankrupting by the taxpayers.

To be completely honest, I'm not really sure how to take this as I don't see what was so funny about my post.

I was meaning to suggest that whilst many seem to think the government would do a bad job of managing the health care industry, it would seem to me to be a better alternative than the private insurance companies.

I'm not suggesting that private companies would do any better. Just the opposite in fact.

Originally Posted by Kostas

I'm impressed to see that nearly bankrupted insurance companies still have any negotiation power or influence on decision-making.

Yes, nearly bankrupt, but there's still enough money in the coffers to make sizeable campaign donations. Therefore, still enough to have negotiation power and influence.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by derrell

To the folks from outside the U.S. who wonder about the furor, the reason that this causes such an uproar here has been mentioned in another thread. Taking control of healthcare is seen as a huge step inside of what many consider personal boundaries that government no matter how well intentioned has no business being involved in. I've seen the long list of other socialized programs that we have no problem with, thats not entirely true at least some of us do have problems with them. We see the slow creep of government control into every part of our lives and we have serious reservations about where it will end. Healthcare is just a flashpoint that tends to set enough people off that it is finally noticeable.

Do you have a problem with the government providing a police service? An education service? A fire department? A defence force? Waste and sanitation services? Roads and rail services?

These are all "socialized" services.

If you have no problem with those services being provided by government I really can't fathom why you would have a problem with socialized health care? Is health care any less of a universal need than any of the above?

Or should everyone be obliged to pay for their own personal security guards, tutors, fire brigade, army etc etc, like, it seems, they are required to pay for their health care?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Do you have a problem with the government providing a police service? An education service? A fire department? A defence force? Waste and sanitation services? Roads and rail services?

These are all "socialized" services.

If you have no problem with those services being provided by government I really can't fathom why you would have a problem with socialized health care? Is health care any less of a universal need than any of the above?

Or should everyone be obliged to pay for their own personal security guards, tutors, fire brigade, army etc etc, like, it seems, they are required to pay for their health care?

Cheers,
PKFFW

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is the issue here. Bear in mind that the intent of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Most of the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) contain language saying "such and such right shall not be infringed" - in other words, the amendments are restricting the government from infringing on a right that is assumed, rather than that right being granted by the government.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Most of what you list are not services provided in the US by the federal government. They are appropriately provided by state and local governments. Until fairly recently, this amendment was the crux of a lot of the differences between liberals and conservatives in the US. (Recently of course, I'm not even sure that the two main parties know what they stand for - they seem to exist just to kick each other in the face.) To most conservatives, the Constitution contains no language granting Congress the power to manage a health care system. Therefore, Congress has no right to do so.

Congress can write an amendment granting that power, and try to get it through the ratification process.

The States are not limited in this case by the US constitution, but each state has it's own constitution that may (or may not) limit it.

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

To be completely honest, I'm not really sure how to take this as I don't see what was so funny about my post.

I was meaning to suggest that whilst many seem to think the government would do a bad job of managing the health care industry, it would seem to me to be a better alternative than the private insurance companies.

I'm not suggesting that private companies would do any better. Just the opposite in fact.

Sorry, I had no intention to offend. Nothing funny about your post, really. It was just a badly placed ironic comment about the persisting opinion -even after last 18 months dramatic events- that private management performs by defnition always better. In the end, taxpayers paid the bill for the biggest bailout ever. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlennD

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is the issue here. Bear in mind that the intent of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Most of the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) contain language saying "such and such right shall not be infringed" - in other words, the amendments are restricting the government from infringing on a right that is assumed, rather than that right being granted by the government.

The 10th Amendment states:


Most of what you list are not services provided in the US by the federal government. They are appropriately provided by state and local governments. Until fairly recently, this amendment was the crux of a lot of the differences between liberals and conservatives in the US. (Recently of course, I'm not even sure that the two main parties know what they stand for - they seem to exist just to kick each other in the face.) To most conservatives, the Constitution contains no language granting Congress the power to manage a health care system. Therefore, Congress has no right to do so.

Congress can write an amendment granting that power, and try to get it through the ratification process.

The States are not limited in this case by the US constitution, but each state has it's own constitution that may (or may not) limit it.

Does the constitution specifically permit the Federal government to use tax-payers's money to buy motor manufacturers, or banks? If it can do this, why can't it run a healthcare system?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But where does 'healthcare' begin and end?
There's a debate in the UK about whether IVF should be provided free.
Some people don't think the NHS should provide tattoo removal, or other cosmetic procedures.

Everything could fall under "healthcare". It's not only physical health, but also mental health.

If you have a tattoo, you took when you were a kid, and it now causes you mental harm, shouldn't it be removed?

Or if you really want a child, but just can't get one the natural way, would it improve your mental health if you were denied because an IVF treatment is just beyond your reach?

Naturally, in those cases, it's more difficult to decide if it's really "killing" you (in a mental sense), while it's easier to see in a physical sense.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by GlennD

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is the issue here. Bear in mind that the intent of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Most of the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) contain language saying "such and such right shall not be infringed" - in other words, the amendments are restricting the government from infringing on a right that is assumed, rather than that right being granted by the government.

The 10th Amendment states:


Most of what you list are not services provided in the US by the federal government. They are appropriately provided by state and local governments. Until fairly recently, this amendment was the crux of a lot of the differences between liberals and conservatives in the US. (Recently of course, I'm not even sure that the two main parties know what they stand for - they seem to exist just to kick each other in the face.) To most conservatives, the Constitution contains no language granting Congress the power to manage a health care system. Therefore, Congress has no right to do so.

Congress can write an amendment granting that power, and try to get it through the ratification process.

The States are not limited in this case by the US constitution, but each state has it's own constitution that may (or may not) limit it.

So there would have no problem with each state government providing "free" health care to all state residents and doing away with the private health industry? The issue is only that it should not be done by the federal government?

From an outsiders point of view it seems the issue has more to do with the attitude of "why should my taxes go to pay for his/her medical bills? I pay my health insurance premiums and they should do the same if they want medical care!"

Mind you, I'm not suggesting this is your personal view. Just that from what I read and hear it seems most are more concerned with the hip pocket and what their taxes shouldn't be paying for than with anything to do with the power of the federal government.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[derrell]

Originally Posted by formerroadie

Sorry, I must have misspoken. It's not what I meant about price. First, it's not single payer. It's an option and the prices would be set in the government option, not all the others. They would have to compete as they see fit.

I understand people's concerns, but, for the most part, many of the countries in this world that have this do quite well. Is it perfect? no. Anything involving humans will never be perfect .

Your right you didn't mention single payer I didn't read the quoted posts close enough. But a private company that has to show a profit will find it hard to compete with any government sponsored plan. The government doesn't have to show a profit. When they are short they just take a little more from everyone to make up the difference.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Do you have a problem with the government providing a police service? An education service? A fire department? A defence force? Waste and sanitation services? Roads and rail services?

These are all "socialized" services.

If you have no problem with those services being provided by government I really can't fathom why you would have a problem with socialized health care? Is health care any less of a universal need than any of the above?

Or should everyone be obliged to pay for their own personal security guards, tutors, fire brigade, army etc etc, like, it seems, they are required to pay for their health care?
Cheers,
PKFFW

This was pretty much the quote I remembered from the other thread. As glennD says most of what you list is provided by state governments. The citizens of each state can decide how much of what they want and how they pay for it.

The fire department doesn't apply to me though as I live in a rural area where there isn't a fire department and I pay higher home owners insurance premiums because of it, and the last place I lived yes you did pay for the volunteer firefighters responding to a fire on your property.

The armed forces are a proper thing for the government to provide. Along with the interstate highway system to move them around the country. That includes the taxes and tariffs to pay for it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Does the constitution specifically permit the Federal government to use tax-payers's money to buy motor manufacturers, or banks? If it can do this, why can't it run a health care system?

This is an excellent point Harry. No it shouldn't allow them to do that and a strict reading of it doesn't grant them that power. That is part of what is fueling the health care debate. Our government is stepping way outside of the bounds that they should be working within.

The car companies and banks should have failed. They could have just as easily gone into bankruptcy and restructured without government intervention. In fact that was what GM and Chrysler did. Took the money and then filed bankruptcy. Thats how the U.S. government ended up with controling interests in them and private investors got screwed in the deal as well.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Does the constitution specifically permit the Federal government to use tax-payers's money to buy motor manufacturers, or banks? If it can do this, why can't it run a healthcare system?

I would say no, there is absolutely nothing authorizing any of the bailouts.

Then again, this is the core of a debate that has run for over two hundred years now.

[formerroadie]

I would like to pause and thank you all for a meaningful discussion. I discuss this topic on political forums and it turns into a screaming match. I was hoping that people who read a lot would bring great questions and thoughts to the discussion. Breath of fresh air my friends!

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So there would have no problem with each state government providing "free" health care to all state residents and doing away with the private health industry? The issue is only that it should not be done by the federal government?

Each state has it's own constitution; what would work in one state might not in another. But yes, that's a large part of the issue, to me at least. Local control means a local voice. In a representative government that's a big deal.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

From an outsiders point of view it seems the issue has more to do with the attitude of "why should my taxes go to pay for his/her medical bills? I pay my health insurance premiums and they should do the same if they want medical care!"

Mind you, I'm not suggesting this is your personal view. Just that from what I read and hear it seems most are more concerned with the hip pocket and what their taxes shouldn't be paying for than with anything to do with the power of the federal government.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I can see why it would look that way, and there's certainly some of that mixed in to varying degrees, depending on who you talk to. Certainly much of the rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk is focused there, and they're loud enough that they grab a lot of the media attention. Sometimes the talking heads do more harm than good when they get on their rants.

[ahammer]

im a fiscal conservative.

I do not like the current plan that has be put up for much the same reasons that glennd posted one page back.

the plan that was put forth by some some of the repub in a few months back.

(this is modled around car insurince)

make insurince mantory.
take aways bizness insurnce plans.
let everyone shop for insurnce aross the us.
if a tax rebate = to x. should be the amount need to get some form of insurince.
more rules to make sure if there is no breach of contract that they can not
drop a customer(becuse this is about life and death.)
also insurince should give you discounts for keeping up with rooten matince


by shoping around cost will be lowered.
people right now that are uninsure could get something like I have that only covers emargry stuff like if you get long term illness.
also as it will be a tax rebate end up covering the cost by


then again im mad(I want a flat tax. would get raid of alot of irs agents.. and aduiters)