Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Two Concerns with Public Health Care | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 25 2009, 09:11 AM (174 Views) | |
| thePhilosopher | Jun 25 2009, 09:11 AM Post #1 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Public health care (universal health care? Obamacare?) has been the subject of numerous blog posts across the interwebs recently, though I haven't yet come across anyone bringing up two concerns that I have been thinking about recently. One point that many congresspeople and left of center bloggers often try to make (perhaps to appease laissez faire minded capitalists like yours truly) is that the public option would be competition for private health insurance companies. In fact, it will be quite the opposite; the introduction of a public option will eliminate competition. The public health option will have essentially unlimited resources and never have to make a profit in order to stay in business. That is, the government can fund this program with money printed by the Federal Reserve or loans from China or, if the Obama administration would be so foolish, soaking the rich in order to pay for it (giving wealthy individuals even less of an incentive to stay in the US and run businesses). Regardless of the method of payment, this public option has the full backing and resources of the government, which will put them at an insurmountable advantage against their private "competitors." In effect, this administration will be creating an entity that can spend any amount of money and doesn't need to make a dime, which is as alien as it gets to any free market or any cogent notion of "competition." The second point I have yet to hear adequately addressed is how, in any way, we can expect the gov't to be efficient in taking care of health care when their current projects in health care are leveraged up to the hilt. Medicare Part A and B have combined deficits of $68 trillion, and Medicare Part D has run up a $17.2 trillion deficit in about 3 years (thanks, Dubya). If this is the way Medicare works, why would the gov't be so much more successful if we give them more responsibility for US citizens' health care? Obama and his administration's economic stooges often say that public health care would reduce the cost of health care to Americans (just like the government kept the costs of college tuition low by subsidizing student loans, right?). By this, I assume they mean that they will consolidate the costs of Americans, and in that way, individuals will have to pay less immediately and for the moment. But the long term costs, if we can take Medicare as any indication, will run high and will run well into the future. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. How many times do we need to try giving government a chance on health care? That's not to say that something needs to be done in order to remedy the health care situation in this country, but every time we do more with government intervention, the long term prognosis looks worse. Perhaps economic freedom and deregulation should be tried in light of Western governments' shortcomings in the field of health care. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jun 25 2009, 09:58 AM Post #2 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I agree with both of your points 100%, Phil. I would like to see any of our Obama supporters here try to refute either of these. |
| |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 25 2009, 10:21 AM Post #3 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Thanks. I've been trying to write a bit more. I heard this weekend that Britain's NHS (their healthcare system) will be broke in 2 years, and have been taking in a lot of gov't "stimulus" for the past 7 just to keep it afloat. My source: NPR. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jun 25 2009, 10:32 AM Post #4 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
People who say government run health care couldn't be any worse haven't researched Britain's or Canada's systems. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 25 2009, 12:07 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Coach
|
I would like to hear sirbrian's response to this, as he is the only 100% supporter or national healthcare that I know of on here. He will probably just give us a *yawn* instead. Eel is in favor of government control over the private healthcare industry, which is basically the same thing, so we'll see how he responds. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jun 25 2009, 12:25 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
I am? Huh,.. news to me. I thought I was for government control over the insurance industry. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 25 2009, 01:42 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Coach
|
you really don't see that as one and the same eel? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jun 25 2009, 01:50 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
Nope. Much as politicians would like you to believe that we have a healthcare crisis in the United States, this is not the case. Our healthcare is fine. We have an insurance crisis in the United States. I will give you an example. Go over to your local hospital and have an MRI. Tell them you have no insurance and wish to pay cash. Now go to another hospital and get the same MRI done on your insurance's tab. Compare the bills. The bill w/o insurance will be substantially higher. Why should those without insurance, those least able to pay, have to pay the most for their healthcare? Why should the uninsured have to subsidize the insured? |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 25 2009, 01:57 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Coach
|
ok, so the insurance companies get us a lower rate and somehow THEY are the problem? The hospital over charges "those least able to pay" and somehow they are NOT the problem? yernuts |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jun 25 2009, 02:18 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
So if everyone were paying the same lowered rates, and everybody paid, there is no problem. Hence, it is an insurance problem. Jeeze you can be thick sometimes. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jun 25 2009, 02:27 PM Post #11 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Phil, are you saying that it is impossible to run a good nationalized healthcare system or are you saying that the way it is being proposed right now will make it impossible? |
| |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jun 25 2009, 02:35 PM Post #12 |
![]()
All-Star
|
My comments are exclusive to the situation of the US, financial and otherwise. In other countries, perhaps it could work, but you have to go "all in" with the gov't. As a libertarian, I find that idea to be repulsive and shortsighted, but maybe things are pretty good in Finland or Belgium or whatever country people point to and say "we need THAT system!" We have so many commitments overseas and domestically that its foolish to pursue this sort of project at this time. Furthermore, I don't know how anyone can say that gov't can keep health care prices down with a straight face. Gov't involvement almost always drives prices up, not keeps prices low. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jun 25 2009, 04:42 PM Post #13 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
I heard a discussion on talk radio today on this issue, and one doctor called in to express two issues: 1. People are going to the doctor's office because of every 'normal' health issue, i.e., colds, because they know their health insurance will cover it and 2. Doctors are running tests that they feel are unnecessary because of the risk of a medical malpractice suit. Which brings us to a third issue of: 3. insurance companies denying needed medical procedures because they question doctor's motives of running a test. Have I ever taken my child to the emergency room unnecessarily? Yes, on a friday/saturday/sunday for a problem that could have waited until Monday but would have required me to take time off work. I'm not going to deny that I have done that. Did I feel guilty doing so? No, because I have had to fight time and again with my insurance company for procedures or prescriptions that I knew they were supposed to cover that they would deny. For instance, when my six week old son was in the hospital they told me that they were not going to cover his hospitalization (he was running a 105 temp and had breathing problems) because 'he wasn't on our family plan.' They covered his birth and we had a family plan, but they said 'you have thirty days after his birth to put him on.' Now why would we NOT put him a plan if it covered him (additionally, the company did NOT provide this information to our corporation, aaron, so it was not a case of 'not reading our plan). We cleared it up eventually, but I know that others would have given up. I don't know if anyone saw the sixty minutes piece on insurance coverage a number of years back, but they sent in someone to interview for a job on file claims and when they were hired, their boss told them that they were to 'lose' a certain percentage of the claims. Eventually some people will give up and just pay. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jun 25 2009, 09:14 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Coach
|
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I'll assume you mean what you are saying. If everyone paid the same lowered rate, everyone paid, and the government were able to force the private insurance companies to cover things that they cannot afford to cover (like you have suggested), then NO ONE WOULD BE COVERED....THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS. Eel, you need to decide if you want freedom or not in this country. I don't think you can have 1 foot in and 1 foot out. Yes, freedom has situational or anecdotal downfalls, but overall the principles of freedom lead to a better society than any alternative. You can't cherry pick your freedoms....if you try you end up opening up the door to giving up all of them. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jun 25 2009, 09:27 PM Post #15 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
So are you against the Patriot Act, aaron? Phone-tapping of suspected terrorists? I'd hardly call those situational or anecdotal. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:45 PM Jul 10
|














7:45 PM Jul 10