[paraclete]

Health Insurnace or Jail, acording to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. the current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

It seems this debate has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Why should a government have to resort to fines and jail terms over something so basic. I think you must all be anarchists over there, freedom is only worth something if you are alive to enjoy it, the "I died Free" shout does you no good at all if it could have been avoided for a small fee and it isn't as though you won't get something for your money.

How is it not socialism for your governemnt to own an auto maker. How is it not socialism for your government to own banks, how is it not socialism for your government to own an insurance company. Don't you get it? They want some business for their investment, capitalism in action. No, socialism is not unamerican, it is just following a new tradition.

[NeedKarma]

This is Socialism, and not America.

Yes this is the Republicans mantra that has been spouted ad nauseum.

Yet in reports of countries by human development index the top countries all have universal health care:
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or
Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

[Synnen]

[QUOTE=paraclete;2019207]

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.

Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

[Synnen]

PS... you didn't answer my question:

So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

[excon]

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon

[Synnen]

Yup... and who is John Galt?

[paraclete]

[QUOTE=Synnen;2019276]

Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.?

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

If I read you right you are saying capitalism doesn't work, that you are actually afraid of there being more private sector involvement in health care. Right now you have 1600 health care insurers but they are a protected species, just a few allowed to operate in each state. I heard a proposal was to open the market so they could compete and people are against this. Once again you are saying the free market doesn't work. Your existing system is a license to print money, twice as expensive as a universal health care system and the outcomes aren't as good as they should be.

You already have the infrastructure to do this in medicare and medicade, there are people there with experience, it doesn't need a new corporation or government authority, just an expansion of what already exists, and what you save is the cost which is going into shareholder pockets about 23% of costs. No pharmeutical company can provide all medicines by the way, the patent system prevents it.

By all means get out of Iraq and move military and reconstruction spending to the health sector. You see once again you are saying the capitalist system doesn't work, not in Iraq, not in New Orleans, but where do you get the resources to do anything big. The Government doesn't have a team standing by that can reconstruct a city, or service 160,000 troops, or reconstruct a country. If there are no skilled people you have to get them from somewhere.
The emphasis now is on stimulus projects so sure NO is going to be further down the list.

[paraclete]

PS....you didn't answer my question:

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

[Synnen]

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT!

A mix of the two (Keynesian economics, rather than Friedmanite economics) works better. Teh government SHOULD have oversight of the health care system. But they should NOT go into the business themselves. They don't know HOW.

So my point has been, over and over: FIX the current system. Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.

[excon]

SOCIALISM doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need.

Hello again, Synn:

Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it...

But, you don't think that your insurance company just writes the checks, do you? Nahh. And, you're not saying, are you, that there ISN'T an insurance adjuster deciding what your needs are, right NOW, are you?? No, you wouldn't be saying that, cause it ain't true.

If it were ME, I'd rather have a bureaucrat in there, whose mandate is to give as much medical care as there is, to as many as there is - instead of an insurance adjuster whose mandate is to ration care so as to make as much profit as there is.

But, that's just me.

excon

[NeedKarma]

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

Absolutely correct. That's why you guys are caught between a rock and a hard place - lobbyists and corporations guide policy in your government more than anywhere else I know of.

SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT!

Who decides? Doctors do. Same triage arrangement as you have now; how do you think it would run? Your doctors and you have the same conversations you have now.

Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.

Actually please refer to my previous post about the recent report on the best countries to live in. The system works all over the world, but maybe not in the US for the reason noted above. Are there any other countries that have successful market-driven health care systems?

[NeedKarma]

Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it...

Actually it isn't a bureaucrat.

[ETWolverine]

I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.

These four items alone could lower the costs of health insurance by as much as 50% across the board, probably more, making them affordable to the vast majority of the "have nots" that you are worried about.

The interesting thing about the "Baukus Plan" that we have been hearing about is that acccording to the CBO's report (released yesterday) the plan leaves 25 million Americans STILL UNINSURED... out of 30 million that they claim are currently uninsured. So the government-health-insurance plan doesn't even really address the issue in any meaningful way.

Because it was never intended to address the issue.

The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.

That's the BIGGEST problem with government-run health care.

Simply put, the free market DOES have all the answers to the problems of health care, and is in a better position to deal with the issues than the government is. We don't need regulatory caps to lower costs... we need more competition and lower taxes to do that. Which means that what we need is for the government to get out of the way. Government intervention only drives costs up, not down.

Elliot

[excon]

The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.

Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

[ETWolverine]

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon

Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

I wonder if either of you actually recognize the quote that Synn was citing.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875.

Congratulations, excon and Paraclete. You are Marxists.

So's Obama.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

Oh, excon, you silly man...

After the government has taken over 10 of the 12 largest banks in the country, 2 of the 3 largest auto makers, the largest insurance company, and several financial/securities brokerage institutions, as well as increasing the regulatory controls over the R&D and manufacturing sectors of the economy through crap & tax, dictating what types of cars, lightbulbs and toilet paper we can use, and deliberately driving up the price of oil by limiting our drilling... can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy? They are already in the process of DOING it. Can you truthfully argue that it isn't happening when there is so much evidence that it is... when the government is actually doing these things?

Willfull blindness is such a sad state of affairs, excon. And rather surprising from a guy who thought that Bush was trying to take over the world via the USA Patriot Act. It is amazing how you can see government conspiracies where there are none, and ignore them when there is clear evidence of them.

Elliot

[excon]

can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy?

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy.

We had to destroy the bridge in order to save the bridge... is that it?

Pure BS. Pure COMMUNIST BS.

Elliot

[Synnen]

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon

Correction:

Most FRIEDMANITE economists argue for your position. Most KEYNESIAN economists think the current swing towards Chicago School Economics is scary as hell.

[tomder55]

Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. Intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions... not those of Friedman