Nationalized Health Care

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:If you think that a market system is barbaric so be it. However there are several entities in a market system and I can choose who to deal with.

In your system one entity, i.e. government tells me what to do and I cannot simply walk away as I can with any corporation.

That is at least as barbaric but much less free.

…i don’t think a deregulated free market is the answer you think it is. We can agree to disagree?

[/quote]

Of course!

Now all you have to do is to vote so that people like me do not longer have to work for your social systems and we can each go our own way.

If not you are basically saying that we can have different ideas as long as we toil for you.

You see that that is not entirely satisfying?

42

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

Within a nation - generally very local, rooted in a place. There is no such thing as an abstract “community” - i.e., among nations, a nation itself, etc.

…won’t those communities fall under that nation’s law?

[/quote]

… and is it not the nature of a republic that you are NOT allowed to vote on everything?

Like slavery, death penalty and rape?

Why not add other peoples property?

43

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
The way the President has proceeded thusfar…by getting the Health Care Industry involved…it is unlikely that what will come out of all this with a “European-Style” Health Care System.

Most likely, there will be some type of “hybrid” of private/governmental system that will be unique in the delivery of Health Care.

How it will all pan out, absolutely NO one knows.

I word about us (Americans)…there is no way that we, as a people, have the patience or tolerance level for a completely Governmental Run System. When you have people who yell and scream in an office because the Physician is 20 minutes behind, they certainly are not going to patient waiting 3-6 months for a non-emergent procedure.

There is also a MAJOR problem brewing that no-one is discussing…the poor distribution of Health Care Providers, especially in 1) Primary Care and 2) High-Risk Specialties like OB-GYN.

More and more medical students simply are not choosing to go into these areas.

More people may be insured…but we’ll have less and less qualified people to care for them.

Mufasa

It’s a good thing everyone read over this post without replying. Why would we talk about reality when we can instead discuss false choices and boogiemen? [/quote]

What he posted goes without saying.

Austrian doctors flee to Germany and those doctors flee to Denmark and the UK and you have all read how British people think about their system.

Yes, central planning means rationing, waiting periods on what not.

However you must understand that I am done with utilitarian reasoning. Even though these systems invariably go to shit there will always be politicians who paint a picture of a paradise that will never be to gain power and the unwashed masses will vote for it.

Therefore it is best not to go down that road and attack it on moral grounds.

44

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:If you think that a market system is barbaric so be it. However there are several entities in a market system and I can choose who to deal with.

In your system one entity, i.e. government tells me what to do and I cannot simply walk away as I can with any corporation.

That is at least as barbaric but much less free.

…i don’t think a deregulated free market is the answer you think it is. We can agree to disagree?

Of course!

Now all you have to do is to vote so that people like me do not longer have to work for your social systems and we can each go our own way.

If not you are basically saying that we can have different ideas as long as we toil for you.

You see that that is not entirely satisfying?[/quote]

…sure, i’ll vote for your freedom, no problem at all…

45

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

Within a nation - generally very local, rooted in a place. There is no such thing as an abstract “community” - i.e., among nations, a nation itself, etc.

…won’t those communities fall under that nation’s law?

… and is it not the nature of a republic that you are NOT allowed to vote on everything?

Like slavery, death penalty and rape?

Why not add other peoples property?[/quote]

…you’re skipping ahead towards a conclusion you haven’t shared yet. I thought we agreed you wouldn’t do that anymore? IOW, what?

46

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

Within a nation - generally very local, rooted in a place. There is no such thing as an abstract “community” - i.e., among nations, a nation itself, etc.

…won’t those communities fall under that nation’s law?

… and is it not the nature of a republic that you are NOT allowed to vote on everything?

Like slavery, death penalty and rape?

Why not add other peoples property?

…you’re skipping ahead towards a conclusion you haven’t shared yet. I thought we agreed you wouldn’t do that anymore? IOW, what?[/quote]

Contrary to what some people believe neither of us live in a democracy but in a democratic republic.

Meaning, we have a constitution which, among other things, contains a laundry list of what governments are not allowed to do.

So, just because you live inside of a nations borders does not mean that everything is up for a vote, in fact quite a lot of things are not.

Why not add other peoples property?

47

[quote]orion wrote:Contrary to what some people believe neither of us live in a democracy but in a democratic republic.

Meaning, we have a constitution which, among other things, contains a laundry list of what governments are not allowed to do.

So, just because you live inside of a nations borders does not mean that everything is up for a vote, in fact quite a lot of things are not.

Why not add other peoples property?[/quote]

…yes, why not?

48

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

Preventive medicine will not prevent most or all diabetes, heart disease, and certainly not cancer.

Do you mean to say that most cases of diabetes, heart disease and cancer are not preventable?[/quote]

No, yes and yes.

To be clear:
–for public health purposes, diabetes adds to morbidity, complications and costs.
–type II diabetes is to a degree preventable, but it will not be eliminated
–100% of people die of something. If people don’t die of or with diabetes and heart disease, neuorologic disease and cancer await
–few cancers are preventable. Take the best example: if no one smoked, lung cancer would be a rare disease. But with 45 years of warning, both smoking and lung cancer remain common. The risk dropped only fairly recently for men, and continues to rise for women. Or consider breast cancer: the rate of discovery dropped after the risk of HRT was discovered, but that may be only a transient blip.
–Last point. Even when prevention is reasonable, and cheap, and completely embraced by 100% of the poulation, events are already fated: for decades the rates of particular cancers, neurologic disease and even heart disease will not change much. The cost of prevention will be high, and the benefits will be very small for years to come.

49

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…nationalized healthcare isn’t evil, and it’s not perfect. It’s a system. If you have to make a choice between systems, you do that based on cost, availability and quality, but not on emotion…

It is a system that cannot be built without the threat of violence.

Of course it is evil.

…then any form of government is evil?

Government is a necessary evil that - at least here in the US - is subject to the rule of law. The powers of the Federal Government are enumerated. Which part of the US Constitution empowers the US Government to provide a national health care system? [/quote]

The Commerce Clause of course.

50

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
…

…i don’t think it’s unwise to think these things through, and i’m sure Obama pushes these changes through partly because he thinks it will win him votes or support. So are you opposing the speed with wich he wants to change the system, or do you have problems with the way he wants to change the system?

[/quote]

Both. I have HUGE fucking problems with the speed he wants to revolutionize shit here, because quick overhaul = shitty overhaul. Not even limited to just healthcare. But I also don’t think the direction he wants to go in is good.

51

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
The way the President has proceeded thusfar…by getting the Health Care Industry involved…it is unlikely that what will come out of all this with a “European-Style” Health Care System.

Most likely, there will be some type of “hybrid” of private/governmental system that will be unique in the delivery of Health Care.

How it will all pan out, absolutely NO one knows.

I word about us (Americans)…there is no way that we, as a people, have the patience or tolerance level for a completely Governmental Run System. When you have people who yell and scream in an office because the Physician is 20 minutes behind, they certainly are not going to patient waiting 3-6 months for a non-emergent procedure.

There is also a MAJOR problem brewing that no-one is discussing…the poor distribution of Health Care Providers, especially in 1) Primary Care and 2) High-Risk Specialties like OB-GYN.

More and more medical students simply are not choosing to go into these areas.

More people may be insured…but we’ll have less and less qualified people to care for them.

Mufasa

It’s a good thing everyone read over this post without replying. Why would we talk about reality when we can instead discuss false choices and boogiemen?

What he posted goes without saying.

Austrian doctors flee to Germany and those doctors flee to Denmark and the UK and you have all read how British people think about their system.

Yes, central planning means rationing, waiting periods on what not.

However you must understand that I am done with utilitarian reasoning. Even though these systems invariably go to shit there will always be politicians who paint a picture of a paradise that will never be to gain power and the unwashed masses will vote for it.

Therefore it is best not to go down that road and attack it on moral grounds.

[/quote]

Agreed. And that’s why it’s important to fight this behemoth here, before we get to the point you all have over there. Then there will be no coming out of it.

52

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
…

…i don’t think it’s unwise to think these things through, and i’m sure Obama pushes these changes through partly because he thinks it will win him votes or support. So are you opposing the speed with wich he wants to change the system, or do you have problems with the way he wants to change the system?

Both. I have HUGE fucking problems with the speed he wants to revolutionize shit here, because quick overhaul = shitty overhaul. Not even limited to just healthcare. But I also don’t think the direction he wants to go in is good.[/quote]

…do you think change is needed at all, or do you think the system could use a overhaul? If so, what kind of changes do you think are needed?

53

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
…

…i don’t think it’s unwise to think these things through, and i’m sure Obama pushes these changes through partly because he thinks it will win him votes or support. So are you opposing the speed with wich he wants to change the system, or do you have problems with the way he wants to change the system?

Both. I have HUGE fucking problems with the speed he wants to revolutionize shit here, because quick overhaul = shitty overhaul. Not even limited to just healthcare. But I also don’t think the direction he wants to go in is good.

…do you think change is needed at all, or do you think the system could use a overhaul? If so, what kind of changes do you think are needed?

[/quote]

Well I’m not arrogant enough to think I know everything, but yes some sort of change needs to be effected. I’m not sure what all specifically is the best course right now. I don’t think an overhaul is the best course at this point in time. Politicians have a proclivity for “grand solutions” or dramatic proposals. The problem is they suck balls at doing anything well, and most often a dramatic proposal isn’t the best solution. In fact, in short sighted fashion, they usually end up causing an assload of problems.

I will say this–I’m in favor of personal responsibility, and as a result the millions of people that choose not to get health coverage because they are trying to live outside their means gets no real sympathy from me. I mean, sure, it sucks that they got stung, but it was their choice when they decided to try and buy an 80" tv and uber cable.

I think in general collegiate and professional students need better coverage, because they are often poor and unable to pay for quality care, in addition to taking out debt for college/school. It might be nice to give them some quality care, and a small buffer period post graduation, so that while they are searching for a job they can maintain coverage.

Other than that I’m not prepared to say anything specific because I haven’t managed to put my own thoughts completely in order yet. As they say, it’s easier to talk about what’s detrimental than to make specific rec’s to fix it. But this is also an example of why the gov’t shouldn’t rush things…

54

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…do you think change is needed at all, or do you think the system could use a overhaul? If so, what kind of changes do you think are needed?

[/quote]

I don’t have all the answers on this, but a good place to start is to allow providers to charge what they want (free market). Most providers can’t charge less than the medicare or medicaid rates. I believe those that do now cannot bill those programs, but they are running cash businesses and letting patients deal with their own insurance companies.

Many reports indicate both patients and providers are happier with this. Patients are being charged what their copay would be anyway (or even less) and providers don’t have to pay billers and coders so they keep more of their gross.

55

So I was in the driver’s license office getting my license renewed, dealing with absolute imbeciles…I just looked around and wondered how the hell people could want there health care decisions in the hands of morons like these…And have absolute power to make those decisions. …

56

I was thinking of you folks when I was playing on factcheck. (not that you folks are interested in debating what is actually on the table, but…)

From Factcheck.org:
[i]
Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
Updated: May 1, 2009
A conservative group’s ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:

* The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
   
* It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."

…
Obama hasnâ??t called for such a government-run plan, also called a â??single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White Houseâ??s â??Health Careâ?? Web page (and previously on its transition site) that â??President Obama and Vice President Biden believeâ?? that government-run health care is â??wrong.â?? And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, â??letting the insurance companies operate without rules,â?? is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html

57

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I was thinking of you folks when I was playing on factcheck. (not that you folks are interested in debating what is actually on the table, but…)

From Factcheck.org:
[i]
Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
Updated: May 1, 2009
A conservative group’s ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:

* The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
   
* It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."

…
Obama hasnâ??t called for such a government-run plan, also called a â??single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White Houseâ??s â??Health Careâ?? Web page (and previously on its transition site) that â??President Obama and Vice President Biden believeâ?? that government-run health care is â??wrong.â?? And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, â??letting the insurance companies operate without rules,â?? is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html [/i][/quote]

But GL, what, apart from flatulent talk, has Mr. Obama and the current administration proposed? Are there solid plans for financing, rationing, administration? Does Mr. Baucus or Mrs. Sibelius have a coherent plan? Until we all see the proposals, it is all in play.

And the Factcheck site is disingenuous. True, the enabling legislation for the “research council” forbids it to be used to mandate coverage or reimbursement, this was the clear intent of the erstwhile Secretary-Nominate, Mr. Daschle. Once in place the research council will be mandated to function like the British NICE. If Bethesda does not play NICE, I can assure you that insurance companies, who will be administering national health programs, will embrace it fully. They are the first organizations to deny coverage, and they will also deny benefits deemed marginal by the research council.

Dr. Sikora pointed out (http://new.mylifeisaverage.com/index.php) that 2 mediicines were withheld by NICE from NHS. One of those medicines is responsible for extending the median survival of colon cancer patients from 8 months to 24 months. You could not get it in Britain in 2006. When the marginal utility of a medicine or procedure is calculated, a value is put on human life. As Dr. Sikora opines, " it seems that you and I are worth only about £30,000 a year to the NHS. "

Now then, when a national system is put in place, and when resources are limited, what will be the value placed on a year of your life and of mine?

58

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I was thinking of you folks when I was playing on factcheck. (not that you folks are interested in debating what is actually on the table, but…)

From Factcheck.org:
[i]
Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
Updated: May 1, 2009
A conservative group’s ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:

* The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
   
* It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."

…
Obama hasn�¢??t called for such a government-run plan, also called a �¢??single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White House�¢??s �¢??Health Care�¢?? Web page (and previously on its transition site) that �¢??President Obama and Vice President Biden believe�¢?? that government-run health care is �¢??wrong.�¢?? And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, �¢??letting the insurance companies operate without rules,�¢?? is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html [/i]

But GL, what, apart from flatulent talk, has Mr. Obama and the current administration proposed? Are there solid plans for financing, rationing, administration? Does Mr. Baucus or Mrs. Sibelius have a coherent plan? Until we all see the proposals, it is all in play.

And the Factcheck site is disingenuous. True, the enabling legislation for the “research council” forbids it to be used to mandate coverage or reimbursement, this was the clear intent of the erstwhile Secretary-Nominate, Mr. Daschle. Once in place the research council will be mandated to function like the British NICE. If Bethesda does not play NICE, I can assure you that insurance companies, who will be administering national health programs, will embrace it fully. They are the first organizations to deny coverage, and they will also deny benefits deemed marginal by the research council.

Dr. Sikora pointed out (http://new.mylifeisaverage.com/index.php) that 2 mediicines were withheld by NICE from NHS. One of those medicines is responsible for extending the median survival of colon cancer patients from 8 months to 24 months. You could not get it in Britain in 2006. When the marginal utility of a medicine or procedure is calculated, a value is put on human life. As Dr. Sikora opines, " it seems that you and I are worth only about �£30,000 a year to the NHS. "

Now then, when a national system is put in place, and when resources are limited, what will be the value placed on a year of your life and of mine?[/quote]

While GL prepares his answer, here are the current leaks on Obamacare.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzkwMmM4ZGU2MzljYjQzYTdiNzJhN2QyZTllOTI2M2I=

59

The government can bite me. If mandated that I get coverage, I will not. I will not pay the “pay or play” tax if they institute one on individuals, and they can put me in jail. If I get it through an employer, so be it. I oppose a “competitive public option” on the grounds of big government, but I oppose the “mandated coverage” on far more committed grounds. If the plan ever morphs into “single payer” mode in the future, I’ll oppose that.

It’s my goddamned life, not the gov’t’s.

I know whats best for me.

I know what I want and don’t want in an insurance policy of any kind, and I want the choice.