The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[scoolbubba]

I didn't think it would be government insurance you were forced to buy. Truth?

Sorry, you're right. People would be forced to have insurance, whether they buy it from the government or pay more for it thru a private company is up to them...but with the option to pay less with a govt plan, where do you think they're going to put their money? Private insurance would be wiped out.

 

[Spekkio]

Watching Obama on TV last night comment on a hypothetical kid that comes into the office several times with a tonsil issue- should scare the living daylight out of you.

Actually, I had to laugh at his stupidity. The pediatrician recommending a tonsillectomy is not going to be the doctor performing it, so there is really no profit motive in this decision at all.

How many times did your child go in for treatment for aggravated symtoms (tonsils) in the past two years? Number of infections? How severe are the infections? How bad were the syptoms? Any other issues (compound emergencies for the AW types here) is the child likely to incurr by not treating the problem in a timely manner? You don't want your child to NOT receive treatment because your doctors new gov't issued knee pad doesn't allow them to skip any steps do you? After all, they get fined or worse if they don't follow the new fangled steps in the correct order. Seriously- Obama's writers told him to mention allergies in this scenario to convince the public to support this ill conceived program?

Obama has continuously reassured that this would not happen. However, I do believe that the government would turn to this style of management in the future to "curtail costs."

On the flip side, many insurance companies also do this now, so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Sorry, you're right. People would be forced to have insurance, whether they buy it from the government or pay more for it thru a private company is up to them...but with the option to pay less with a govt plan, where do you think they're going to put their money? Private insurance would be wiped out.

Forcing people to buy health insurance is stupid, and I'm quite sure it's unconstitutional.

It screws middle class people because it forces them to pay an extra bill a month that they might not want. It screws upper class people because they can afford healthcare without insurance.

What are they gonna do for jobless people who can't pay for insurance...throw them in jail?

 

[m0tbaillie]

Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

So do services such as public transportation, public parks and recreation, public schools, mail, and garbage collection.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Hell the insurance companies are a major part of the problem, they are booking record profits by by canceling health coverage for "undisclosed" pre-existing conditions whereever they can, arguing with doctors as to the best course of action on treatment while at the same time refusing to reimburse doctors and jacking up the rates on everyone at the same time. Lets not even get into the compensation levels of thier executives.

Since when is there anything wrong with making record profits? Isn't that the idea? A CEO who doesn't bring in as much money as possible for the company is being disloyal to his employees and shareholders. And if they are making record profits, well of course it will translate to high compensation levels.

Now if you think there should not be a profit-motive in the healthcare industry, that's fine. But that's a whole new can of worms. That would basically require a government takeover. As has been mentioned, having the government 'compete' with private companies that operate under additional restraints isn't exactly a level playing field. The referee isn't supposed to play in the game.

As long as we have for-profit insurance companies, it is silly to get mad because they are actually making those profits.

If I want ESPN and comedy central, I have a choice between directv and cable. Honestly, I think they are both too expensive and have crappy customer service, but they provide a service I want. I certainly don't think the answer is a government-option cable company.

 

[wlawr005]

So do services such as public transportation, public parks and recreation, public schools, mail, and garbage collection.

That's kind of ridiculous. Those services are provided by the government because the private sector won't touch them. What company is going to build a park or collect garbage without making a profit from it? School buses, public parks, etc. all have free riders (meaning people who didn't pay for them get to use them). Not good business practice for the private sector in the free market.

These kinds of services are exactly what the government is supposed to provide in order to protect the free market, not socialize it.

Oh, and by the way, tax payers pay for all of that stuff, so constitutionally the government is actually doing its job.

 

[m0tbaillie]

That's kind of ridiculous. Those services are provided by the government because the private sector won't touch them. What company is going to build a park or collect garbage without making a profit from it? School buses, public parks, etc. all have free riders (meaning people who didn't pay for them get to use them). Not good business practice for the private sector in the free market.

These kinds of services are exactly what the government is supposed to provide in order to protect the free market, not socialize it.

Oh, and by the way, tax payers pay for all of that stuff, so constitutionally the government is actually doing its job.

You do pay for school busses and public parks. They come out of your taxes. In fact, you pay for all of those public services with your tax money. And some public services you have to pay a small usage fee for directly (i.e. public transportation, mail, etc.).

Also, Fedex, DHL, and UPS all deliver mail for-profit, too.

Lastly, I am pretty sure that the government also incurs the obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens which, depending on how you choose to extrapolate, could include healthcare as well.

 

[phrogpilot73]

What company is going to build a park or collect garbage without making a profit from it?

In fact, you pay for all of those public services with your tax money.

You guys need to move around a bit more. In Jacksonville, NC I paid $19/month to a private company (there were two in the area to choose from) for my trash removal. In Odenton, MD - trash removal from my house was done by a company that the homeowner's association contracted and paid for with our homeowner's association dues.

Virginia Beach is the first place I've lived in a while that it's done by the city, and tax dollars. Interestingly enough, it's the first place I've lived in a while that only collects once a week, vice twice a week.

 

[m0tbaillie]

You guys need to move around a bit more. In Jacksonville, NC I paid $19/month to a private company (there were two in the area to choose from) for my trash removal. In Odenton, MD - trash removal from my house was done by a company that the homeowner's association contracted and paid for with our homeowner's association dues.

Virginia Beach is the first place I've lived in a while that it's done by the city, and tax dollars. Interestingly enough, it's the first place I've lived in a while that only collects once a week, vice twice a week.

Well, that makes sense, but not everybody lives in the 'burbs attached to a homeowners' association. Strictly speaking, I'd say most people don't pay out of pocket for waste removal, however, the fact that you do says something. People take for granted all of the social (keyword: social) services that we had and act as if healthcare is so far off from any other public services which have become so far embedded into our everyday lives that people don't stop to think exactly how they're funded or how they operate.

 

[Spekkio]

So do services such as public transportation, public parks and recreation, public schools, mail, and garbage collection.

Ummm...

You're failing to distinguish between federal and local government agencies, with the exception of mail. Mail doesn't even fit here, since you pay a fee to use it -- a fee that is more expensive than privatized options.

If the city of whereversville wants to institute public healthcare, then go for it. It has no business on a national level.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Ummm...

You're failing to distinguish between federal and local government agencies, with the exception of mail. Mail doesn't even fit here, since you pay a fee to use it -- a fee that is more expensive than privatized options.

You pay a direct fee to use public transportation too.

You pay a fee to use all of that stuff, it's called taxes. Why are people making the connection that their tax dollars, once removed, have zero impact on these services? It just isn't so.

And no, be it local or federal, you still pay state and federal taxes and, one way or another, money out of your pocket is going to pay for those services be it the money you pay in taxes or the money you open your wallet and spend to keep said service operational.

 

[Spekkio]

You're right, you do pay an extra fee to use public transportation. We won't mention that few, if any, transportation agencies so much as break even.

There is a big difference because it's very easy to move to the next town. I grew up in a neighborhood where property taxes went toward garbage collection; I now live in a town where you have to pay a fee for garbage collection OR take it yourself to a nearby landfill. I grew up in a town that had transportation; I now live in a town that does not. I don't live in a rural area, either. Get the picture?

If a federal healthcare plan is instituted, I have no choice: I must pay $X to the government to provide Y services. I can't move to another town, I can't decide to opt out, I can't decide that hey, I have enough money so screw insurance. The difference between me paying for a service out of pocket vs. the government taking it from taxes is choice: in the former, I CHOOSE to purchase a service, in the latter, I'm FORCED to purchase a service.

Different communities have different ideas of the roll of local governments in their lives, and that's fine. But this sort of role is NOT left to the federal government. Ergo, using local government services as an example to support a federal healthcare plan is retarded.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Well, that makes sense, but not everybody lives in the 'burbs attached to a homeowners' association. Strictly speaking, I'd say most people don't pay out of pocket for waste removal, however, the fact that you do says something.

I live in the burbs in Odenton, but Jacksonville, NC is considered a rural area. I also paid for trash removal in Stevensville, MD - a rural area of MD. I would bet that most people that live in rural areas pay out of pocket, and urban areas have it provided for them. Which then ties into your next point:

People take for granted all of the social (keyword: social) services that we had and act as if healthcare is so far off from any other public services which have become so far embedded into our everyday lives that people don't stop to think exactly how they're funded or how they operate.

I would argue that people in rural areas are more accustomed to making due for themselves than in urban areas. So I would think that people in urban areas take for granted how much "has" to be provided for them.

I'm against the government running health care because of the bang-up job they've done with the post office, Amtrak, etc...

If government run health care is the wave of the future, why did the military start moving away from it with TriCare? Oh yeah, that's right - to save money.

 

[m0tbaillie]

You're right, you do pay an extra fee to use public transportation. We won't mention that few, if any, transportation agencies so much as break even.

There is a big difference because it's very easy to move to the next town. I grew up in a neighborhood where property taxes went toward garbage collection; I now live in a town where you have to pay a fee for garbage collection OR take it yourself to a nearby landfill. I grew up in a town that had transportation; I now live in a town that does not. I don't live in a rural area, either. Get the picture?

If a federal healthcare plan is instituted, I have no choice: I must pay $X to the government to provide Y services. I can't move to another town, I can't decide to opt out, I can't decide that hey, I have enough money so screw insurance. The difference between me paying for a service out of pocket vs. the government taking it from taxes is choice: in the former, I CHOOSE to purchase a service, in the latter, I'm FORCED to purchase a service.

Different communities have different ideas of the roll of local governments in their lives, and that's fine. But this sort of role is NOT left to the federal government. Ergo, using local government services as an example to support a federal healthcare plan is retarded.

You don't choose to pay taxes, you have to pay them. You also have probably never made use of social welfare, but your taxes support that as well. Whether you use or don't use a service is uttery irrelevant, the quintessential factor and the point that I'm trying to make is that at least if you *needed* to utilize said service, it would be there. You wouldn't hit rock bottom one day and magically start paying taxes to ride the bus and for your foodstamps.

The overarching problem that I see in our country today is, by and large, selfishness. People have this tendency to only think "me me me mine mine mine" and not "us us us, ours ours ours". Now, I wouldn't want to see us descend into full-blown "socialism" ala Scandanavia or central Europe, but basic socialized services are far more efficient and cheaper than their for-profit counterparts no matter how you spin it, so what's to complain about? Again, I reiterate my point: this country is too concerned with individuality and not what's good for the country as a whole. Whether you look at it on the person-to-person level or the overall "country-to-country" level, it's selfish at best.

I would argue that people in rural areas are more accustomed to making due for themselves than in urban areas. So I would think that people in urban areas take for granted how much "has" to be provided for them.

I'm against the government running health care because of the bang-up job they've done with the post office, Amtrak, etc...

If government run health care is the wave of the future, why did the military start moving away from it with TriCare? Oh yeah, that's right - to save money.

Just because people in rural areas are accustomed to paying out of pocket for public services because of geographical feasibility doesn't mean everyone should be relegated to said means. It sucks, but you simply have to consider cost-benefit analysis and, choosing to live 10 miles into the boonies where your nearest neighbor is half a mile down the road isn't feasible when it comes to things such as garbage collection.

Also, what's wrong with what the government has done with USPS? When's the last time a piece of mail - even parcel mail - didn't get to you in under a week or so?

 

[scoolbubba]

Now, I wouldn't want to see us descend into full-blown "socialism" ala Scandanavia or central Europe, but basic socialized services are far more efficient and cheaper than their for-profit counterparts no matter how you spin it, so what's to complain about?

Proof?


And we are concerned more with the individual. That's called liberty. The problem with your idea is that even though it might make you feel good that people are contributing to our society as a whole singing kumbaya and such, there will still be individuals (lots...like, all the people that don't pay a dime worth of taxes today) that will reap the fruits of society's labors for their personal gain.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Also, what's wrong with what the government has done with USPS? When's the last time a piece of mail - even parcel mail - didn't get to you in under a week or so?

Yesterday.