Healthcare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mgajmp1011, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes. Food and shelter is vital. But you are missing an important little point.

    So, in the spirit of good faith, I am going to take a leap here and point out the obvious. Food and shelter means squat if you are dead.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yeah and food is already unbelievably cheap in the USA, as well as shelters: a variety of organizations will take you in for free for the night.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah the old slippery slope arguement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We are already on the slippery slope. And why are we already on the slippery slope? Because the healthcare industry has complete control of pricing. How did they get this control? Courtesy of bribes and threats, or whatever you want to call it, to congress from the industry.

    So wither you like it or not, the government is already committed to spending huge sums of money on healthcare (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug Plan with no bid restrictions on government, passed by our dear Republican friends). The only question is, would you prefer to pay more (Republican Plan) or less (Demorcat Plan)? My preference is for less federal spending.

    Food and housing is already provided to indigent people by government and private agencies. So I don't get your comparison here. Taxpayers (rich as you define them) are already paying for food and shelter for the poor and indigent. It is called welfare. Additionally, we are also paying for the healthcare costs of the indigent, it is called Medicaid.

    I think you are getting lost in the right wing rhetoric. Healthcare reform is about using free market forces to reduce healthcare costs. We are not talking about wage and price controls. We are talking about using free market forces to cut through all of the healthcare oligopolies and deliver better quality and lower cost healthcare to healthcare consumers. And as a byproduct, we lower government expenditures and are able to insure all citizens and distribute healthcare costs more equitably.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Interesting perspective, Joe, but I think you should check your sources. Just recently we were subjected to news videos of hundreds of "tent cities" in various areas of the USA ...people without homes, without jobs, without money, without adequate food, ...and the gov agencies interviewed said that they just didn't have the money to care for all of the people.

    And you should also check the unemployment numbers. You might be surprised at the number of people who can't afford adequate housing and food, much less the luxury of healthcare.

    I think you're wrong, Joe. I'd guess that there are millions of Americans who don't have adequate food or shelter. And many of them have been that way for decades or longer. Check your sources, Joe, something's wrong here.

    Then why don't we just do that and not tax anyone for anything? If it's as simple as you say, they just tell the hospitals, clinics, doctors, et al, to lower their costs. They'll do it, healthcare will then be affordable, and no one will have pay for anything with taxes. Good idea, Joe!

    Baron Max
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    yeah, yeah, aaah if you haven't noticed news tends to exaggerate: first of all some of these "tent cities" have existed for decades, second they are not really cities, more like villages with populations in the hundreds.

    Gee, I wonder what wellfare is for?

    Not nearly as many as uninsured. Surely not nearly as many who are being riped off with an over priced system (almost all the insured!).

    Because at present the government has not legal regulations to do that, but they are working on it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think you said it well, "I'd guess that there are millions of Americans who don't have adequate food or shelter" Do you have any proof of same? If so, I would like to see it.

    Instead of telling other people to do your research for you, I suggest you do a little of your own research once in a while. Trust me, it will be good for you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Below is a link with a brief overview of Welfare in a number of countries including the US. If you scroll down, you will see some commentary on welfare as practiced in the US. The US Department of housing provides public housing for the poor. Since the Great Depression, the United States has had and continues to have a very intensive welfare program for poor individuals. In addition, poor individuals get access to Medicaid. Below is a link explaining US Mediaid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
    http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental_assistance
    http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/medicaid.asp

    Finally, where do you come up with price controls? No one I know is arguing for price controls.

    As I previously pointed out, the best solution is a free market solution. And that solution is being advocated most in the Democrat proposals. Competitive markets are the best most efficient means to allocating resources. Healthcare markets in the US today are not competitive.

    This is not at all complicated. In summary the poor are provided for in terms on food and shelter. Are there a few cases that fall through government cracks? Absoutely, those in need must appeal to the correct agencies. Our government does not follow people around and require them to request assistance. Individuals have to take some initative on their own. And there are other reasons why individuals could be temporaily without homes. The operative word being temporary.

    Ps. just because homeless camps have been around for tens of years does not mean the same individuals have been there for tens of years. And there are some people who choose to be homeless. I know, I worked with them on the streets.

    ps Unemployment does not necessarily mean someone is homeless. People do have savings. They also may a spouse that works and they may be collecting unemployment benefits which mitigate the effects of unemployment. By the way, unemployment was a part of the social reforms that came out of the Great Depression (socialism, etc).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So I repeat, we are already on that slippery slope

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Fixed for you...
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So if you're happy with housing and food welfare, why not just go the welfare route for healthcare? If it's good enough for one, why not the other?

    I just seriously don't like the idea of taking/taxing one segment of the population excessively in order to give to some other segment. That just seems to go against everything that the Constitution stands for.

    So, ...is that the excuse you'll use when the gov begins to hand out the happy pills and provide willing sex partners for each of us ...in the "Brave New World" in the near fruture? Two wrongs make everything right again?

    Baron Max
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Beats not having food at all. But lets compare unprocessed food, despite the higher calorie content per gram, how much do you think a roasted chicken in the USA costs compared to one in say central africa? How much do you think a bag of whole flour costs compared to india? How much do you think a single cabbage costs in sri lanka?
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    That sort of what universal healthcare is.

    Aaah, where in the constitution does it say that wrong?

    Slippery slope. Besides is that a bad thing?
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What has any of this to do with healthcare reform? What is wrong with making the healthcare industry more competitive? What has this got to do with happy pills? Nothing. In the Democrat plan there are no changes in the patient physician relationship. Physicians still diagnose and prescribe. The government does not dictate treatements. Under the proposed Democratic plan, the government will not own the hospitals nor will physicians be employed by the government.

    When one segement of the population (wealthy) uses government to impede free market competition in order to line their pockets with public dollars, there is nothing wrong with those adversely impacted by those actions to use government to seek redress. And that is what is happening here.

    On the issue of consititutionality, not only does the consititution itself run against your arguments but so does over a hundred years of legal precedent and judicial decisions. I guess we could have a consititutional convention, but you might not like what comes out of that convention.

    The issue is what it is, we face a signficiant financial crisis before us. If we do nothing, the problem festers like an infected sore and gets much worse. If we address it we may have some scaring, but the infection will eventually heal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  15. kac11 Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    I agree with your views on health care. In Dan Gerstein’s article on the Forbes website entitled, “It’s not the Economy, Stupid”, he states the idea that Democrats have become so obsessed with the prospect of making history, and fixated on the public option as a means to an end, that they have not noticed that the bills they are moving may in fact degrade the current health care system and could actually increase costs for consumers and the Treasury.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    A couple of things, to keep things fair and balanced. Dan Gerstein is paid to write partisan (Republican) stories for a partisan (Forbes) journal. So it comes as no suprise that he would be antihealthcare reform.

    Two, in the Article "It's not the Economy Stupid", it does not mention anything about the current bills actually degrading healthcare. Nor does it mention anything about actually increasing costs to healthcare consumers.
    The jest of the article was that some do not believe the bill goes far enough
    to reform the current healthcare system.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/health/policy/10cost.html?_r=1

    A quotation from the article:

    "Both the House and the Senate are proposing cost-saving measures. The House bill projects $440 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years; the Senate Finance Committee bill projects about $420 billion. White House officials say there will be additional, substantial savings in the private sector, as well. But how much is not clear."

    Still, it is one thing to wring savings out of a bloated system, quite another to change the way that system does business.

    Rather it points out there is a lot of disagreement on the Democrat side about particulars of the bill. That too should not be very suprising considering how politically hot the issue is with special interests spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat healthcare reform.
     
  17. Laurel Connolly Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    While you say that this universal healthcare plan will punish eighty-five percent of all Americans this isn't necessarily true! First, lets begin with over 45 million people have no healthcare at all, left on the streets with out any medical attention. While there are people paying for and rightfully earning healthcare, we have to realize that they aren't going to be shafted. For the most part, people who are happy with their doctors will be able to keep their same doctors and similar healthcare as long as it follows the governments rules. The upper class will be taxed a little bit more but it is worth it to save the lives of those 45 million without healthcare!
     
  18. Laurel Connolly Registered Member

    Messages:
    5


    While you say that this universal healthcare plan will punish eighty-five percent of all Americans this isn't necessarily true! First, lets begin with over 45 million people have no healthcare at all, left on the streets with out any medical attention. While there are people paying for and rightfully earning healthcare, we have to realize that they aren't going to be shafted. For the most part, people who are happy with their doctors will be able to keep their same doctors and similar healthcare as long as it follows the governments rules. The upper class will be taxed a little bit more but it is worth it to save the lives of those 45 million without healthcare!
     
  19. Laurel Connolly Registered Member

    Messages:
    5

    First, I have to comment on how you think the government shouldn't be involved in our health care plan. However, there are several corrupt healthcare systems that aren't being fair, and having the government overlook the health care would actually benefit us. When you say health care is a privilege not a right, are you saying you rather have poor people die on the streets then be taxed a small percentage?
     
  20. Laurel Connolly Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    To begin, there is no way the government is going to have free health care for all. It would obviously be very nice but we wouldn't be able to fund all the hospitals etc. with out taxes. Therefore, I believe the universal health care is the best alternative. The upper middle and upper class would have a small tax increase but it is worth it to save the lives of people who can't afford health care. Bottom line is no one is going to be turned away from medical attention with this new universal health care reform.
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    percent to overhead in the taiwanese system(government takes premiums and pays out. true blue single payer system like I want in the states)2%
    percent to overhead in the swiss system( no profit allowed for nonsupplemental insurance everyone must buy insurance)5%
    average percent to overhead in the american system(all that matters is the insurance companies profits) 20%


    tell should we switch




    all percentages from a georgia public broadcasting thing I was watching at 4 in the morning sunday.
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Please name some other "systems" in this country where government intervention/overlooking/etc has benefited the general population.

    As far as I know, most, if not all, of the things that the government touches has turned to shit and corruption right before our eyes. They can't even produce the H1N1 vaccine and get it distributed properly. They can't properly inspect our fruits and vegatables to protect us from e-coli outbreaks.

    When did such things ever become a "right" for citizens in the USA?????

    As to the poor people dying on the streets, if we pass the healthcare laws, will poor people stop dying "on the streets"?

    Poor people have been dying "on the streets" for some 60,000 years or more ....and you think that this one little congressional action is going to stop it suddenly? ...LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  23. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    You've constantly used references to the "free market" to defend government involvement in healthcare. I know I've told you more than once that this sort of government involvement disqualifies it from being "free market".

    And what do you mean by "distribute healthcare costs more equitably". If you're paying for more than you and your dependents, I don't think the costs are being distributed fairly.

    At the beginning of your post you bitch that the healthcare industry has complete control over the pricing, yet you say that this "reform" isn't about price controls. You can't have it both ways...
     

Share This Page