US Medical System

[burdizzos]

Also, here's another bit that I don't understand every time this topic comes up.

 

If it's such a great idea, then why haven't any of the individual states passed a single payer healthcare system? It'd be much easier to establish something like that in a state than it would be on a national scale. They could even slap restrictions on it to prevent freeloaders from moving into the state for free healthcare. If it works as claimed, other states would be right on their heels.

 

Why does it have to be national? There are states in this country with populations greater than some European nations. Hell, California's population is greater than Canada's.

[RSBro]

Also, here's another bit that I don't understand every time this topic comes up. If it's such a great idea, then why haven't any of the individual states passed a single payer healthcare system? It'd be much easier to establish something like that in a state than it would be on a national scale. They could even slap restrictions on it to prevent freeloaded from moving into the state for free healthcare. If it works as claimed, other states would be right on their heels. Why does it have to be national? There are states in this country with populations greater than some European nations. Hell, California's population is greater than Canada's.

 

 

Great point.

[hawkhuff]

The money wasted in Iraq should have stayed stateside such that there would have been no deficit spending, thus keeping the dollar strong in foreign markets and maintaining a higher rate of growth. Lobby groups have a tremendous affect now, that's how I know that whenever the gov't starts handing out money, those clowns line up to get their piece of the pie, which, inevitably, gets bigger. If there is a national healthcare plan, who decides what will be covered and what will not be covered? Doctors? Medical professionals? No, Congressmen who enjoy campain donations from various lobbies. Aromatherapy wouldn't be covered immediately, but it's a nearly certain eventuality because people will make claims about "maintaining wellness as a means to lower overall healthcare costs."

Maybe the money 'wasted' in Iraq as you put it (Mudslide) , can be used to reduce the number of inner city murders that occur here every day. Far more die here than in Iraq on a yearly basis. Who runs the cities? The Dems government; the same group of leftist extremists who want to give you free healthcare for EVERYTHING.

 

How do we do that? Got an answer? They don't.

 

Don't look to the Canadians, theirs is a mess.

[Muddslide]

Also, here's another bit that I don't understand every time this topic comes up. If it's such a great idea, then why haven't any of the individual states passed a single payer healthcare system? It'd be much easier to establish something like that in a state than it would be on a national scale. They could even slap restrictions on it to prevent freeloaders from moving into the state for free healthcare. If it works as claimed, other states would be right on their heels. Why does it have to be national? There are states in this country with populations greater than some European nations. Hell, California's population is greater than Canada's.

 

 

This I have no problem with.

[Muddslide]

Maybe the money 'wasted' in Iraq as you put it (Mudslide) , can be used to reduce the number of inner city murders that occur here every day. Far more die here than in Iraq on a yearly basis. Who runs the cities? The Dems government; the same group of leftist extremists who want to give you free healthcare for EVERYTHING. How do we do that? Got an answer? They don't. Don't look to the Canadians, theirs is a mess.

 

 

Not to turn this into a war thread, but you support the war in iraq?

 

As to the rest of your post-- you assert inner cities are run by leftist extremists?

 

And claim Canada's health care is a mess? Howso? What sources will you cite?

[burdizzos]

 

Great point.

 

 

Unless you accept the premise that Healthcare is a right.

 

Which brings us to my next point. If Healthcare is a right, then what else should be a right?

 

Bonoman is talking abouut equality, so shouldn't there be a minimum standard of housing? I'm thinking that no one should ever have less than 500 sq ft per person in a home, but once you exceed 800 sq ft per person in a given home you should be taxed for the luxury of living in such rich quarters as a means to generate the revenue required to raise the average standard of living.

[Muddslide]

PS-- nevermind, hawk. I've now read your sig and cute little avatar lines. You're another xenophobic partisan neocon hack apparently. probably not much point in us trying to converse since I'm NOT a xenophobic partisan neocon (or liberal) hack, but a freethinker.

You keep your black and white views, I'll continue to realize that life is a little less simplistic and more nuanced than that. Good luck to you.

[Ender_rpm]

Also, here's another bit that I don't understand every time this topic comes up. If it's such a great idea, then why haven't any of the individual states passed a single payer healthcare system? It'd be much easier to establish something like that in a state than it would be on a national scale. They could even slap restrictions on it to prevent freeloaded from moving into the state for free healthcare. If it works as claimed, other states would be right on their heels. Why does it have to be national? There are states in this country with populations greater than some European nations. Hell, California's population is greater than Canada's.

 

 

IIRC, Oregon and at least one New England area state (Vermont?) had measures to do this on their ballots. California is likewise preparing legislation. National level healthcare gets the most attention because all the major networks cover national news, not state level, so it gets more media coverage, ergo more debate. Also, in light of the patch work of state laws regarding marriage, abortion, and other socially contentious issues, a Federal level system, with "equal access" for all 50 states seems like an easier pill to swallow.

[burdizzos]

 

This I have no problem with.

 

 

Then why are you calling for national healthcare? Act locally! It would be infinitely easier to get a state or even a city to pass a single payer healthcare ordinance than it will be to get the federal gov't to do it.

[lug]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
Alexander Tytler

[hi.flyer]

Also, here's another bit that I don't understand every time this topic comes up. If it's such a great idea, then why haven't any of the individual states passed a single payer healthcare system? It'd be much easier to establish something like that in a state than it would be on a national scale. They could even slap restrictions on it to prevent freeloaders from moving into the state for free healthcare. If it works as claimed, other states would be right on their heels. Why does it have to be national? There are states in this country with populations greater than some European nations. Hell, California's population is greater than Canada's.

 

 

This would be cool; I bet people are working on it and it will be done in some places, eventually.

 

{censored} the consolidated nation, I'm ready for the US to balkanize/become a confederacy. That would be fun!

[RSBro]

Unless you accept the premise that Healthcare is a right. Which brings us to my next point. If Healthcare is a right, then what else should be a right? Bonoman is talking abouut equality, so shouldn't there be a minimum standard of housing? I'm thinking that no one should ever have less than 500 sq ft per person in a home, but once you exceed 800 sq ft per person in a given home you should be taxed for the luxury of living in such rich quarters as a means to generate the revenue required to raise the average standard of living.

I don't, I just support your idea of a "better argument" States should do more on their own. Look at the ones who have said no to the Real ID Act. And props to New Mexico for taking illegal immigration into their own hands. FINALLY some state legislators are realizing the Fed as a whole is just a giant black hole.

[burdizzos]

 

IIRC, Oregon and at least one New England area state (Vermont?) had measures to do this on their ballots. California is likewise preparing legislation. National level healthcare gets the most attention because all the major networks cover national news, not state level, so it gets more media coverage, ergo more debate. Also, in light of the patch work of state laws regarding marriage, abortion, and other socially contentious issues, a Federal level system, with "equal access" for all 50 states seems like an easier pill to swallow.

 

 

I disagree completely with that last part. If the federal gov't suddenly absorbed the cost of the entire nation's healthcare, the fedal budget would nearly double and would be equal to almost half of the nation's GDP.

 

That is most certainly not an easy pill to swallow by any measure.

 

Also, if it was done at a state level, people have the option to move toward or away from states participating in universal healthcare to create a philosophical market for what works and what does not.

 

Placing healthcare under the control of one omnipotent entity results in zero real influence to determine what people really want. The decisions get made by the various lobbies rather than the tax payers. And the tax payer will lose out every time.

[Ender_rpm]

I disagree completely with that last part.

 

 

Sorry, should have been more clear. The arguement goes that a national level system would give equal coverage, therefore making it philosophically easier to accept. Not neccessarily agreeing with it myself, just presenting the arguement.

 

Can we all agree that soem sort of overhaul of the healthcare system is necessary for the "welfare" of the US?

[hawkhuff]

Not to turn this into a war thread, but you support the war in iraq? As to the rest of your post-- you assert inner cities are run by leftist extremists? And claim Canada's health care is a mess? Howso? What sources will you cite?

I DO support the War but I have problems with the way it's being fought. PC.

Look at virtually every large city in the US and the city mayors (mostly) and the common councils (legislatures) are run by Dems. They have been entrenched like engorged ticks for years. My personal experience is with NY and now Maryland.

Canadian healthcare is a mess, I get this from living in a border town and seeing the flood of Canadians across the border for medical treatment.

The Canadian system for routine stuff, admittedly is OK. However, when your need is something more sophisticated say radiation therapy, lithotripsy, agiography or angioplasty you wait and you wait. Many who cannot wait, like those who have kidney stones or enlarged prostates come to the US for more immediate treatment.

Someone mentioned the Military as a good model for a healthcare system. Well, I worked in it too and there is one treament for VIP's and then there is you. There was tremendous waste in the system. It is no better than the system we have now. Government ALWAYS has a more bloated administrative staff when compared to the private sector.

Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily defending what we have now, I am saying the government takeover is not the better way as so many others believe. Government will give you a choice of physicians? Your choice of drugs? Your choice of hospitals? Your choice of specialists? And they will do this for free??

Should the government tell you what you should eat and how much? Should they not give treatment to the 500 lb fat guy? Or the heroin addict? How about the person who lives a risky life? All will be issues of your lifestyle/personal behavior when the government takes over. You ready for that?

Again, I ask anyone out there. How will this happen?

One last point, please understand there is a difference between routine service, general care and catastrophic care. This further complicates the matter.

[Ender_rpm]

One last point, please understand there is a difference between routine service, general care and catastrophic care. This further complicates the matter.

 

 

Actually, that's a great point that doesn't often come up.

[bbl]

I'm curious, how much is it going to cost me so that I can trust my healthcare to the same morons that run the USPS and IRS.

 

 

The most popular proposals don't require that government run healthcare.

[lug]

Government ALWAYS has a more bloated administrative staff when compared to the private sector.

They will put a system in of checks and balances that make sure the consumer doesn't get an extra free $5 worth of healthcare that cost $20 per customer.....and STILL get ripped off.

[hawkhuff]

I disagree completely with that last part. If the federal gov't suddenly absorbed the cost of the entire nation's healthcare, the fedal budget would nearly double and would be equal to almost half of the nation's GDP. That is most certainly not an easy pill to swallow by any measure. Also, if it was done at a state level, people have the option to move toward or away from states participating in universal healthcare to create a philosophical market for what works and what does not. Placing healthcare under the control of one omnipotent entity results in zero real influence to determine what people really want. The decisions get made by the various lobbies rather than the tax payers. And the tax payer will lose out every time.

In NY there are many counties facing default because of Medicaid costs taking up ALL of the property taxes levied. The counties then have to raise sales taxes and license fees. As a result, the population drain of NY continues.

 

The city of Buffalo (in Erie County) has lost 50% of its population in the past few years. This according to the Census Bureau. State and local governments raise taxes and many large businesses leave the state and the jobs go with them. The working class gets smaller. The state and local governments lose money so they raise the taxes yet again. This is their history until the top five employers in western NY are government. And they continue to raise taxes and more flee.

 

Who runs these programs? Dems.

 

Governments cannot tax a state into prosperity. Don't believe it? Look at the nanny socialist state of NY.

[burdizzos]

 

Sorry, should have been more clear. The arguement goes that a national level system would give equal coverage, therefore making it philosophically easier to accept. Not neccessarily agreeing with it myself, just presenting the arguement. Can we all agree that soem sort of overhaul of the healthcare system is necessary for the "welfare" of the US?

 

 

"Equal" doesn't always mean better, especially when it is delivered by the US gov't. I understand your point, but I can see the other side as well. If it was handled by the states, then the individual would have a greater impact on what they would get for their expense. Once it's on the hill, the average voter is helpless to affect change. Then again, I'm probably giving the average citizen too much credit.

 

 

I completely agree that there should be an overhaul of the medical system, but I'm more inclined to push for more freedom than less.

 

I think the first thing the gov't should do is allow for tax free savings accounts or funds specifically for medical expenses. Money withdrawn for paying medical expenses is not taxed and it comes out of the contributor's paycheck pre-tax. There should be no ceiling on that fund, but in the event that the contributor dies, it should be taxed if cashed out to his heirs, unless it is rolled directly into their medical accounts. And about two more miles of legalese loop-hole closures.

 

Secondly, the gov't should adopt a loser pays civil litigation policy. If you sue someone and lose, then you are responsible for court costs and legal fees for the defendant.

 

Once those two plans are established, the cost of healthcare should drop and the HMO's will have less power.

[burdizzos]

 

The most popular proposals don't require that government run healthcare.

 

 

And the federal gov't doesn't really run the education system, they just set the standards and rules. That's cooking along brilliantly.

[Ender_rpm]

I thought the medical savings account program was already available? I know you have to use it before the end of the tax year, etc. RE: Tort reform- Agree, with qualifications. It really needs to be system wide, or else what were once malpractice suits will become personal injury suits.

[Ender_rpm]

re: Education- One has nothing to do with the other, please don't confuse the issue. And last time I checked, the most hated education law in US History (NO CHild) has raised test scores in the 5 years it has been in effect.

[lug]

re: Education- One has nothing to do with the other, please don't confuse the issue. And last time I checked, the most hated education law in US History (NO CHild) has raised test scores in the 5 years it has been in effect.

 

 

The hatred for that law has nothing to do with the law itself and everything to do with politics.

[burdizzos]

 

I thought the medical savings account program was already available? I know you have to use it before the end of the tax year, etc. RE: Tort reform- Agree, with qualifications. It really needs to be system wide, or else what were once malpractice suits will become personal injury suits.

 

 

There are HSAs and MSAs on the books, but they are hideously overcomplicated and while they are a step in the right direction, state minimum insurance requirements minimize the effect on the marketplace. Many states require insurance companies to provide minimum services to all persons that they they insure. That sounds like a great plan, but the state house lobby has cocked that sideways making it difficult for the individual to explicitly state what coverage they do and do not want.

 

I was talking about all civil litigation with regard to the loser pays system.