• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Illinois on the verge of Socialized Healthcare


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 27 April 2007 - 12:00 PM


Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is now trying to expand his "Free healthcare for Kids" to all residents of Illinois. This is in spite of the fact that Illinois cannot afford it, and this would be the only relevant concern for the Dems in IL. No matter, the generosity and good will of the Democrats has no bounds.

The question I posed has already been answered for me; I see no chance of stopping it now. I will express my outrage and then move on to a city that has yet to be corrupted by the collectivist creed that the majority may vote the concept of rights out of existence.

Although it is inevitable that the quality of healthcare in IL. will gradually disintegrate, this is not my concern at the moment; I've had no health insurance for over 6 years. I find that the cost of heath insurance and services is far too inflated, and I will not spend a quarter of my paycheck to purchase it. The cause of this is readily identifiable in several areas of anti-market legislation, but these are not the concerns of most politicians; they do not fix problems, they heap more problems on top and claim to be heroes.

#2 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 27 April 2007 - 01:36 PM

Expect a big influx of sick people who aren't covered by insurance if the rest of the US doesn't follow on their heels fairly quickly.

#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 April 2007 - 02:39 PM

Free healthcare for Kids


Don't you just love how the Dems throw around the word "free" so casually. The healthcare for the kids is not free and neither will it be for everyone. The question is, would the healthcare the government provides be worth your tax money? Judging by the effectiveness of other government programs in the U.S......fat chance. I know that there is little chance I would ever get any benefit from such a system unless I get in an accident or develop cancer. If you are a healthy person (by choice) and work hard (by choice), all you will end up being is the government's money-source.

If socialized medicine is enacted nationwide (depending on the cost, which will likely be astronomical), I might stop working full-time. Households that earn less than 30,000 a year do not have to pay any income tax (only payroll tax, about 8 to 9%). I figure why work so hard to make money when it is just stolen by the government and given to someone else. I could relax and work a few part-time jobs now and then, some for cash, and then I could spend more time working for Imminst and do more gardening (plus I would get free health care off of some other sucker).

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:42 PM

This is one reason I'm opposed to Hillary. She wanted to nationalize healthcare and have the govt (us) pay for it and let politicians run it. Based on the wonderful job the govt has always done running things such as the Iraq invasion, I expect healthcare to go from being a big problem and become a major disaster. Government has a reverse midas touch and whatever it meddles with turns to crap.

The demos want to tax everyone to death and give massive handouts to all the special groups which keep them in power. The repubs want to give massive handouts to big business which keep them in power. Both are intent on destroying this country. When you hear them talk about "bipartisanship" that means they have agreed on how to divide the swag and you are throwing the party. Keep your hand firmly on your wallet when a politician is within 100 feet.

#5 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 April 2007 - 07:04 AM

I am kind of happy about it for the short term... free blood tests haha.... I just hope they dont mess it up too badly. Healthcare is something that is a conflict of interest with profit motive, but all the options seem pretty bad though. Fully socialized healthcare would be better than the half-way worst-of-both-worlds system that there is currently.

#6 fluffypine

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:38 PM

LOL You guys have no idea whats about to happen in this country.

#7 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:40 PM

LOL You guys have no idea whats about to happen in this country.


Care to elaborate or make some predictions?

#8 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 01 May 2007 - 02:34 AM

I've been actively looking into procuring citizenship in another country for some time now...I'm thinking Australia or Canada

The only thing keeping me back would be the fact that I don't know how hard it would be to obtain work during the interim with only a bacehelors degree

I'm probably going to end up getting a masters, moving to another part of the US and saving some money

I don't see myself here 5-10 years from now...I'm also writing this after dealing with the DMV and some City Government Offices all day, so I might be just a little jaded

I feel this county is all about corporations and profits or empowering unmotivated leeches

#9 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 01 May 2007 - 06:02 AM

If socialized medicine is enacted nationwide (depending on the cost, which will likely be astronomical), I might stop working full-time. Households that earn less than 30,000 a year do not have to pay any income tax (only payroll tax, about 8 to 9%). I figure why work so hard to make money when it is just stolen by the government and given to someone else. I could relax and work a few part-time jobs now and then, some for cash, and then I could spend more time working for Imminst and do more gardening (plus I would get free health care off of some other sucker).


One, Americans pay twice as much for healthcare as the people in other developed democratic countries with universal health insurance, but we generally poorer health outcomes. If anything, cutting out the parasitic insurance companies would tend to lower costs.

Two, most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us much good any way. Robin Hanson has written about tis extensively, including the fact that you have a nontrivial chance of dying in an American hospital today from medical errors. If physicians did a lot less for us, we would hardly notice the difference.

And three, don't you think people in developed democratic countries with universal health insurance go to work every day? By cutting healthcare loose from employment, people don't have to stick to suboptimal jobs they feel they need to keep just for the company-provided health insurance; instead they can find jobs more in line with their interests and abilities, which tends to increase overall productivity.

Libertarians who spout this kind of rhetoric suffer from an irrational bias that WAY overestimates their individual "productivity" and self-reliance. You benefit more than you realize from generational pay-it-forward systems like Social Security and Medicare, where the taxes you pay now buy you claims to benefits when your health eventually crashes. I don't feel put upon in the least that both my parents and (until recently) three of my grandparents draw Social Security and Medicare benefits.

As for the alleged inferiority of government programs, you see that sort of thing when you put people into government (like most Republicans) who don't want government to work any way.

#10 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 May 2007 - 07:35 AM

My only problem with this act is that it removes personal accountability for one's health. For example, I don't want to pay for a smoker's lung cancer treatment. Many (although not all) health problems arise out of one's own negligence. Now some people in the state of Ill. want to throw this cost onto others. Then again, I also think that people should not be allowed to reproduce if they do not have the time or financial resources to care for their youth. But maybe I am just mean. It all comes back to accountability. I see this bill as a way for some people to get elected by giving a majority of people what they want regardless of how the costs are attributed or justified.

#11 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:01 PM

I have no issue with a social insurance system - In fact I wish we could have a similar system to Canada or some of the other European countries

The only issue is that on a state by state - or even regional basis this program will not work and it will only attract the lowest common denominator

The insurance companies are parasites and they will screw you and throw you into a beauracratic loop every chance they get

What is upsetting is that the we will never have a health insurace system done right in this country - Too many paws will be in the pot on the basis of self interest
- What will happen is that the poor will take advantage of the system while the middle class pays for it...The rich of course will want nothing to do with it, they already have the best insurance and doctors that money can afford - The rich have absolutely no incentive to diminish their own level of healthcare

#12 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 02 May 2007 - 01:38 AM

Seems ironic to me that a person calling themselves "advancedathiest" would come forth in defense of such a primitive notion as socialized healthcare (No comment on my name, I just thought it was funny). Allow me to correct a few of your points;

One, Americans pay twice as much for healthcare as the people in other developed democratic countries with universal health insurance, but we generally poorer health outcomes. If anything, cutting out the parasitic insurance companies would tend to lower costs.


There are specific reasons why healthcare costs in the US are out of control, and the only thing that can fix them is the market. Get government out of healthcare. Insurance companies currently do not have the ability to screen consumers as they should, and are forced to include services in their policies that most of us don't need. This forces insurance companies to charge everyone more for insurance. This is similar to the effect of minimum wages, which force employers to overpay employees, and thus hire less people; it deprives people of resources that would otherwise be available. The FDA plays a role in inflating the costs of drugs and services too. On top of this we have allowed malpractice lawsuits to spin out of control causing insurance rates for practitioners to increase dramatically. One possible solution to this problem that I intend to research further is a 'loser-pays' system, which may prevent a considerable amount of fraud.

Two, most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us much good any way. Robin Hanson has written about tis extensively, including the fact that you have a nontrivial chance of dying in an American hospital today from medical errors. If physicians did a lot less for us, we would hardly notice the difference.


This is an argument in defense of socialized healthcare? Try taking a look at any other government bureaucracy and tell me again how socialized medicine will be more efficient or effective. This would be a good argument in favor of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which I think would be the norm once the state stops dictating how insurance companies operate. Most people don't need HMOs and PPOs, there actual costs would be much less than the premiums. What would benefit people, both insured and uninsured, is to have a catastrophic policy in place to guard against disaster, and then to have a spend either out of pocket or out of an HSA for all of their ordinary costs. Even with other current obstacles that I mentioned in the way this would still force healthcare providers to compete with each other to offer lower prices.

And three, don't you think people in developed democratic countries with universal health insurance go to work every day? By cutting healthcare loose from employment, people don't have to stick to suboptimal jobs they feel they need to keep just for the company-provided health insurance; instead they can find jobs more in line with their interests and abilities, which tends to increase overall productivity.


Healthcare shouldn't be and doesn't need to be tied to employment.

Libertarians who spout this kind of rhetoric suffer from an irrational bias that WAY overestimates their individual "productivity" and self-reliance. You benefit more than you realize from generational pay-it-forward systems like Social Security and Medicare, where the taxes you pay now buy you claims to benefits when your health eventually crashes. I don't feel put upon in the least that both my parents and (until recently) three of my grandparents draw Social Security and Medicare benefits.


I don't feel the least sympathy for someone who either underestimates or undervalues their own right to be an individual. If you don't wish to have the responsibility of being alive and of having responsibility for your own life than you can give up entirely and move to Cuba. I have not benefited at all from such systems, and I don't intend to.

As for the alleged inferiority of government programs, you see that sort of thing when you put people into government (like most Republicans) who don't want government to work any way.


The politicians we vote on may establish a bureaucracy, but once it is place it is self-sustaining and almost impervious to outside influences. The FDA is a good example of this; it has grown like a tumor and now the scope of its powers reach far beyond what it was originally intended for.

Unfortunately few people are willing to take the time to understand the actual reasons why there is a healthcare crisis. They mistakenly attribute the problem to the system that is struggling to operate under the bloated hand of government. They fail to see that this hand is not helping, as it claims to be, but slowly crushing the system and our freedoms along with it.

#13 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 May 2007 - 07:52 AM

Unfortunately few people are willing to take the time to understand the actual reasons why there is a healthcare crisis.


The majority gets the government that they deserve. Some individuals get screwed.

#14 danielrichard

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:17 AM

What would benefit people, both insured and uninsured, is to have a catastrophic policy in place to guard against disaster, and then to have a spend either out of pocket or out of an HSA for all of their ordinary costs.

Hear, hear!

To an extent. As an example, a lot of people complain about how much insurance costs, and that they need cheaper insurance so they can afford to take their kids in for regular checkups.

Hello! Insurance isn't for regular checkups. Regularly scheduled costs are simply amortized into the cost of insurance, plus a loading for expenses. Better to pay regular periodic costs out of pocket and avoid the loading. It might cost you $400 every 12 months, but that's better than the $80 per month it's inflating your insurance premiums!

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, like people who have eight kids and make more regular checkup visits than the average by a factor of two or three, so they come out a little head. But for your average insurance premium paying person or family, using insurance to cover ordinary checkups is a total waste. So allow me to quote this person again:

What would benefit people, both insured and uninsured, is to have a catastrophic policy in place to guard against disaster, and then to have a spend either out of pocket or out of an HSA for all of their ordinary costs.


Oh, and by the way, I said to an extent. When you have to pay $400 to get a checkup that costs $400, versus a $40 copay, then you're more likely to just skip the checkup. Fewer checkups means greater risk of poor health. So there are disadvantages which relate to basic human nature.

#15 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:57 AM

Also, I view a nationalized health care as an unconstitutional move by the federal government. If the government is going to take control of my body and health then I think it should at least be added to the constitution as an official function of government. That way each state gets a say....it will at least be a national discussion and vote.

Two cheers for tax free/tax deductible HSA's!

#16 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 03 May 2007 - 10:59 PM

Will somebody show me at least one example of where the government did a good job when they took over something? Just one example, that's all I'm asking for. You can't be cause govt has screwed up everything it touches. And don't tell me it "works" in england or someplace. I've heard from people in the uk and most of them are not thrilled with what they get. You have to wait and wait to get an appointment and then you are likely to be denied the treatment you need if it costs too much. Over there, the rich go to private doctors and the poor go where they are told to go.

"I also think that people should not be allowed to reproduce if they do not have the time or financial resources to care for their youth."

This is something that needs to be said and said loudly. The liberals don't want to hear it but it's true. We have an underclass breeding out of control in this country and most of them are on welfare. The dirtbags have an average of 5 or so kids while the hard working or well to do people have 2. Go forward a few generations and you have chaos. Govt has become a means to steal from those who have and give to those who have not and are unwilling to work for it. Hillary is an example of that.

We need to cut govt down to it's knees. That or get rid of the whole thing and start over from scratch. All agencies should have a sunset so if they are not reviewed and renewed, they get shut down. The FDA is out of control and not doing it's original job. They allow all sorts of crap in the food supply but good things are not even allowed to be offered.

And don't even get me started on the patriot act and other recent abuses.

#17 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 May 2007 - 08:22 PM

Xanadu,

Governments have been highly effective at certain things. Going to the moon was an amazing achievement. The creation of the Internet was possibly one of the biggest achievements in human history, and it was made possible through the government research.

Heck, even the US Post Office, all things considered, functions quite well.

There is no universal law that states governments are inherently ineffective, though I would agree that they tend toward ineffectiveness. Private enterprise is often just as ineffective, and furthermore they often place externalities on society which the rest of us must pay for.

Everything that can be decentralized, should. Everything else should be looked at on a case by case basis. From the evidence, it seems that the US's hybrid system is idiotic. Americans pay twice as much to the government for healthcare as Canadians, and yet also have to pay for insurance.

Big Pharma and most of the healthcare industry has a conflict of interest, because if there were no diseases, there would be no market. Private enterprise has shown itself to be ineffective price gougers, so it is time to look to a Universal Healthcare System, though I wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton to be the one to set it up.

#18 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 04 May 2007 - 09:38 PM

Pro, it's true that govt has managed to fumble it's way through certain things. It's also true that private industry occasionally goofs up. That is not to say that govt does a good job or that they should be entrusted with any more jobs. Speaking of the post office which you lauded, it delivers once a day 6 days a week. Some countries deliver twice a day. Govt's job is to regulate and keep a level playing field. When they do their job we are better off even if they are inept. It's when they veer far off from their assigned tasks and try to take over parts of our lives that things go terribly awry.

Big Pharma and most of the healthcare industry has a conflict of interest, because if there were no diseases, there would be no market. Private enterprise has shown itself to be ineffective price gougers, so it is time to look to a Universal Healthcare System, though I wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton to be the one to set it up.


Big pharma has become a monopoly of sorts with the connivance of government and bad legislation. Big govt has a conflict of interest in that it wants to extend and maintain it's control and budget to eternity. At least big business has to meet a budget and live in the real world. Govt has no such boundaries on it unless we impose them. Govt wants to take your money and spend it on things bureaucrats like to have. That's why dirtbags such as Hillary have to be stopped in their tracks.

#19 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:05 PM

You benefit more than you realize from generational pay-it-forward systems like Social Security and Medicare, where the taxes you pay now buy you claims to benefits when your health eventually crashes. I don't feel put upon in the least that both my parents and (until recently) three of my grandparents draw Social Security and Medicare benefits.


I can see the allure of this train of thought, but instead I think of what is lost when people do not save for their own retirement. In a lesser of 2 evils scenario, I would rather people be forced to fund an IRA or some sort of tax free savings account the minute they turn 18, than have them pay into social security. Social security and medicare provide the very basic minimum for seniors (even though between myself and employer 18% is taken out of every paycheck), both programs are going broke, and politicians use the issue for their own personal gain (fearmongering) instead of making the necessary changes to keep it solvent. It sucks....and I would rather not have health care suck too.

#20 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 05 May 2007 - 02:23 AM

I would personally like to see the day when talk of forcing people to do anything is considered to be morally reprehensible*.

Limited use of force is a something that the government is entrusted with to use with the utmost discretion. The right of the government to use force is derived from the individual right of self-defense, which means that the government only has the right to use force to punish criminals and defend the rights of citizens, just as a individual has the right to defend themselves. No person can claim the right to steal another's property, or to redistribute it among other people. The government therefore can have no moral right to commit an action which would be considered criminal if an individual were to do it. 99% of people agreeing that it is right does not make it right either.

There are plenty of situations that can be debated about whether the government might be an able agent to perform a service or task, but the simple matter is that it doesn't even need to be considered whether or not it is practical once it has been established that it is wrong.

*This would also apply to banning any action that is not directly violate the rights of others.

#21 spidermite

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 May 2007 - 01:09 PM

"I would personally like to see the day when talk of forcing people to do anything is considered to be morally reprehensible"

Centralised government spending has produced some of the greatest advancements in human technological, social, medical achievement. As progressive said, we wouldnt have the internet, motorcars, we wouldnt be in space, hell we wouldnt even have water or power!

I dont understand your rabid anti government line, in your world you would be 'free' , free to be a caveman.

You would also have no defense against money forces which the government regulates against. Seems youve adopted the propaganda of people much richer and more powerful than you who want more power to have their will over your life.

#22 quicksilver

  • Guest
  • 98 posts
  • -1

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:20 AM

"I would personally like to see the day when talk of forcing people to do anything is considered to be morally reprehensible"

Centralised government spending has produced some of the greatest advancements in human technological, social, medical achievement. As progressive said, we wouldnt have the internet, motorcars, we wouldnt be in space, hell we wouldnt even have water or power!

I dont understand your rabid anti government line, in your world you would be 'free' , free to be a caveman.

You would also have no defense against money forces which the government regulates against. Seems youve adopted the propaganda of people much richer and more powerful than you who want more power to have their will over your life.


Gov money comes from it's citizens and is very inefficiently used. Your comments are remarkably extremist and inaccurate. While having a government is vital to any society what is not needed is the massive growth the gov has given itself to regulate our freedoms as give to us by the constitution. The gov has far exceeded it's original intent and purpose and radical change is necessary to prevent further corruption of our rights.

Ron Paul for President.

#23 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:22 AM

Centralised government spending has produced some of the greatest advancements in human technological, social, medical achievement. As progressive said, we wouldnt have the internet, motorcars, we wouldnt be in space, hell we wouldnt even have water or power!

I dont understand your rabid anti government line, in your world you would be 'free' , free to be a caveman.

You would also have no defense against money forces which the government regulates against. Seems youve adopted the propaganda of people much richer and more powerful than you who want more power to have their will over your life.


Sorry I hadn't noticed this earlier, been a bit busy.

You're free to not understand what I'm saying, but you're not free to impose your will upon me using the state as a vehicle.

The advances you refer to were made by individuals who either would have made them anyway, or they would likely have been developed when their time had naturally come. The vast majority of industries and advancements were funded, developed, and sold privately with no assistance (but a good deal of interference) from the state. Solutions to problems are developed as needed. The evolution of the US economy is the only example needed in this case. The US economy is a beacon that outshines any other in the world and is the symbol of free market ability. It is silly to think that we wouldn't have the myriad advancements in technology, or that they wouldn't be as available and widely distributed, if it weren't for state intervention. As I've said before, humanity progresses not as result of, but often in spite of, state intervention in the economy.

Unfortunately I can't muster the will to attempt a full answer to the rest of your post as it is hardly intelligible. I think that it is mostly an irrational and illogical (and not infrequently encountered) confusion between economic and political power. So long as the government is properly performing its role in the protection of individual rights, and is not making illegal alliances with individuals or businesses, it is impossible to violate the rights of another person through the use of money.

#24 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:48 AM

There is not an advanced society on Earth that doesn't have a government. All the great accomplishments of the American Economy didn't happen in a vacuum. They required schools, roads, communication systems, courts, a legal system, markets, etc. All that stuff costs money, and somebody has to pay for it. Somebody has to administer it. Can you name a country where the solution to most of these needs does not involve governments and taxation? In a free market paradise, who pays for indigent healthcare? Do you just let them die? Who pays for the incarceration of criminals? Do you just let them run free? Do you shoot them? Is every road a toll road? Who prevents securities markets from being manipulated? Is it every man for himself? Do you have a military? Who pays for that? Am I free to not pay for the military if I think it's being used for idiotic counterproductive purposes?

#25 jonano

  • Guest
  • 472 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Trois-Rivieres

Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:57 AM

please, the new documentary of micheal moor might be interesting for you guys.

Personally I believe in a free, public health care for all, the poor or the rich.

That is for me, the best way to achieve health. and nobody want to be sick.

We must provide to everyone, the same services.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko

because when you think about it twice, we dont need capitalism and economic freedom on health. WE NEED COMMUNISM ON LIFE SCIENCE, the goal is life and health, we can't deny it, we can't be wrong about it!

Everyone to SICKO June 29 2007!! don't forget to hurl in theators..

--Jon

Edited by jonano, 26 June 2007 - 04:23 AM.


#26 quicksilver

  • Guest
  • 98 posts
  • -1

Posted 26 June 2007 - 05:31 AM

There is not an advanced society on Earth that doesn't have a government.  All the great accomplishments of the American Economy didn't happen in a vacuum.  They required schools, roads, communication systems, courts, a legal system, markets, etc.  All that stuff costs money, and somebody has to pay for it.  Somebody has to administer it.  Can you name a country where the solution to most of these needs does not involve governments and taxation?  In a free market paradise, who pays for indigent healthcare?  Do you just let them die?  Who pays for the incarceration of criminals?  Do you just let them run free?  Do you shoot them?  Is every road a toll road?  Who prevents securities markets from being manipulated?  Is it every man for himself?  Do you have a military?  Who pays for that?  Am I free to not pay for the military if I think it's being used for idiotic counterproductive purposes?


Who stated we should not have a government? That is idiotic to think we do not need a government to maintain certain aspects our freedoms.

#27 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 June 2007 - 11:50 AM

One thing has become abundantly clear after reading many of these posts, those opposed and those in favor are talking past one another. Why?

For one thing this is not about socialized medicine as opponents claim, it is about insurance reform for health care. Nobody is asking for the state to take over hospitals or order doctors to treat in a specific manner, in fact that is what HMO's and PPO's and the insurance industry are doing now even when those making the decision have no medical background.

So first of all let's call a spade a spade; this discussion is about providing medical insurance; who will get it, who will manage it, how it will be paid for, and how profits can be distributed, it is not about *socialized medicine.*

Second, it is a real slight of hand to grant the insurance industry any credit for the advances of modern medicine, they are "Johnny come lately's" to the field and they only came for the profits, not the principles.

The insurance industry has only become interested as a market they can manipulate and profit from, they have no social interest in the form of civic responsibility. They are not responsible for the history of medical advances, they did not fund that research, they certainly have not really improved things since they took over the industry and their conduct has not been particularly more efficient than government according to most in depth analysis of their history of control, which has only been for much of the last 30 to 50 years.

By most accounts for example the VA does a better job of providing health care on a cost of service basis when assessed in terms of both quality and efficiency. Even more so when looked at in terms of return on each dollar spent by the taxpayer.

I suggest we start talking about this as insurance reform not heath care reform because it is not about telling doctors how to treat patients (in fact insurance companies do that now through denial of coverage), it is about the mechanics of paying for service and who will profit, industry or the citizens.

#28 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:18 PM

There is not an advanced society on Earth that doesn't have a government.  All the great accomplishments of the American Economy didn't happen in a vacuum.  They required schools, roads, communication systems, courts, a legal system, markets, etc.  All that stuff costs money, and somebody has to pay for it.  Somebody has to administer it.  Can you name a country where the solution to most of these needs does not involve governments and taxation?  In a free market paradise, who pays for indigent healthcare?  Do you just let them die?  Who pays for the incarceration of criminals?  Do you just let them run free?  Do you shoot them?  Is every road a toll road?  Who prevents securities markets from being manipulated?  Is it every man for himself?  Do you have a military?  Who pays for that?  Am I free to not pay for the military if I think it's being used for idiotic counterproductive purposes?

Who stated we should not have a government? That is idiotic to think we do not need a government to maintain certain aspects our freedoms.


The rabid free-marketeer Ayn Randoid types seem to believe that all taxation is inherently evil. No taxes pretty much equals no services, no government... But I'm probably exaggerating their exact position. I know that many of them say "I want this service and that service, but no other" (a military is usually one of them), but there is nothing stopping the next guy from saying "oh, and I want this other service", and the next guy from saying "I want numbers 2 and 3, but not the first one" and pretty soon you're right back where we are today. To me this illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding of human nature that characterizes the free marketeers, not unlike Marxists.

ps: Lazarus Long's post above on the true nature of the healthcare debate should be required reading. He has it right.

#29 quicksilver

  • Guest
  • 98 posts
  • -1

Posted 27 June 2007 - 09:18 AM

There is not an advanced society on Earth that doesn't have a government.  All the great accomplishments of the American Economy didn't happen in a vacuum.  They required schools, roads, communication systems, courts, a legal system, markets, etc.  All that stuff costs money, and somebody has to pay for it.  Somebody has to administer it.  Can you name a country where the solution to most of these needs does not involve governments and taxation?  In a free market paradise, who pays for indigent healthcare?  Do you just let them die?  Who pays for the incarceration of criminals?  Do you just let them run free?  Do you shoot them?  Is every road a toll road?  Who prevents securities markets from being manipulated?  Is it every man for himself?  Do you have a military?  Who pays for that?  Am I free to not pay for the military if I think it's being used for idiotic counterproductive purposes?

Who stated we should not have a government? That is idiotic to think we do not need a government to maintain certain aspects our freedoms.


The rabid free-marketeer Ayn Randoid types seem to believe that all taxation is inherently evil. No taxes pretty much equals no services, no government... But I'm probably exaggerating their exact position. I know that many of them say "I want this service and that service, but no other" (a military is usually one of them), but there is nothing stopping the next guy from saying "oh, and I want this other service", and the next guy from saying "I want numbers 2 and 3, but not the first one" and pretty soon you're right back where we are today. To me this illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding of human nature that characterizes the free marketeers, not unlike Marxists.

ps: Lazarus Long's post above on the true nature of the healthcare debate should be required reading. He has it right.


I've looked at ayn rand's "writings" and my reaction was equal to or greater than Officer Barbrady's.

9:40

Edited by quicksilver, 27 June 2007 - 09:30 AM.


#30 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 05 July 2007 - 08:38 PM

Niner,

I have no where near called into question the absolute necessity of government as a precondition to a free society. Where I draw the line is at that point where the government ceases to protect the individual citizen's rights and begins to violate them. You have apparently not taken the time to distinguish between a case in which the government is protecting rights (ie. military, jails, police), and when it is violating them (any instance in which taxes are used as a means to redistribute wealth, or in which the state is restricting freedoms).

Taxes are, or course, currently the only realistic way of funding the government and so cannot be considered evil per se.

Lazarus,

Right now there is no debate between free-market health care vs socialized health care. Free-market health care no longer exists and people can no longer recognize its potential. The debate is between the half-assed socialization of medicine that we have now partly as a result of heavily regulated insurance companies, and fully socialized medicine via government insurance programs. Of course there is the in-between option of still allowing private insurance companies after installing all of the state programs, but this would only be a painful transition.

Doctors may continue to be free to practice and to be employed privately, but the rate of inflation in the health care 'market' would quickly be so elevated so as to make it impossible to afford any services without insurance (worse than it is now). Inevitably the judgement about how a patient will be treated will no longer be up to the doctors, it will be decided by bureacrats (rationing of services will not be avoidable).

A situation in which a state-run insurance program has the absolute say over what kind of treatment, and how much treatment the patient gets, while the patient has virtually no other options, is de facto socialized medicine.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users