The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[magnetfreezer]

But the government doesn't just pay 3k to blue cross every month. It's a government-administered single-payer system; the same sort that critics allege would be so inefficient and wasteful by virtue of the government running it.

What exhelodrvr said, plus we need military hospitals, etc. to provide the ability for military doctors etc to stay current - if they only practiced medicine in combat/deployed (won't find a Blue Crescent in XXXX-stan) they would lose skills rapidly and have nothing to do stateside. Some of the garden spots where Uncle Sam decides to station personnel with their families - both US and overseas - call for organic medical assets instead of relying on the locals.

 

[HercDriver]

Military medicine/Tricare are not public healthcare programs - they are compensation for the services rendered by military personnel as government employees, just as no one would call the $20K/yr a LCpl receives for clearing houses in Fallujah a welfare payment. In addition to being part of the compensation, it is an investment by the military - just as aircraft need maintenance, a squadron full of broken personnel won't be very mission effective. I'd rather not have my pilot be distracted by worries about his wife/kids healthcare either.

Healthcare for retired personnel is another form of compensation, especially important for the cases when injuries/illnesses were caused by the wear and tear of military service. Even in cases where they avoided service injuries, the retired servicemember has given the past 20 years to the government when they could likely have been earning more on the outside, establishing a career progression, etc. When 400 pound Joe and Jane Trailerpark have made great contributions to our security, I'll gladly support government healthcare for them.

What exhelodrvr said, plus we need military hospitals, etc. to provide the ability for military doctors etc to stay current - if they only practiced medicine in combat/deployed (won't find a Blue Crescent in XXXX-stan) they would lose skills rapidly and have nothing to do stateside. Some of the garden spots where Uncle Sam decides to station personnel with their families - both US and overseas - call for organic medical assets instead of relying on the locals.

So, for your "compensation" argument, you are for socialized medicine, as long as it is for compensation for services to a job. Same for families; they get gov't run healthcare because of compensation? As for ensuring your pilot isn't distracted by worries about healthcare for his family, what about your airline pilot, bus driver, police officer, and others? And so what if someone made a decision to enter in the military for less than he earned on the outside...that was his/her choice.

Why do you hate free market principles of competition so much?

As for stateside military hospitals; they need to be kept open simply so military doctors have something to do, not because it could be done (much more efficiently, I'm sure) by civilians?

 

[magnetfreezer]

So, for your "compensation" argument, you are for socialized medicine, as long as it is for compensation for services to a job. Same for families; they get gov't run healthcare because of compensation? As for ensuring your pilot isn't distracted by worries about healthcare for his family, what about your airline pilot, bus driver, police officer, and others? And so what if someone made a decision to enter in the military for less than he earned on the outside...that was his/her choice.

Why do you hate free market principles of competition so much?

Still not seeing how compensation for services rendered is socialist - when we pay Lockheed for a new C-130 is that a government handout? As for the airline pilots, etc, if United, AA, GE, Greyhound, et al decided to build their own hospitals instead of giving their employees health insurance, that would not be socialist either - just a decision by the employer. Socialism is giving government resources to those who have not earned them:

USG deposits 2K/month in Joe Trailerpark's bank account: socialist - handout for no work
USG pays Blue Cross/Aetna/etc insurance premiums for Joe Trailerpark: socialist - handout for no work
USG funds hospitals to give free treatment to Joe Trailerpark: socialist - handout for no work


USG deposits 2K/month in PFC Snuffy's bank account: compensation for services rendered
USG pays Blue Cross/Aetna/etc insurance premiums for PFC Snuffy: compensation for services rendered
USG funds hospitals to give free treatment to PFC Snuffy instead of paying premiums: compensation for services rendered

As for the training value of mil hospitals, stories occasionally come up about the free cosmetic procedures the military offers to keep the plastic surgeon's skills up between deployments. Certainly, civilians could provide services more efficiently (and do in areas such as dental care for dependents), but if you fire all the military medical personnel it'll be hard to find civilian docs willing to leave their practice at a moments notice to sit in a tent in the middle of the desert or on a boat for 6 months.

Good point on the socialist military, though - we could probably save money by hiring the surplus regional airline pilots for 20K/year to take over CONUS rescues - the only place where we really need military personnel in the USCG would be overseas. No need for stateside training/proficiency.

 

[HercDriver]

Still not seeing how compensation for services rendered is socialist - when we pay Lockheed for a new C-130 is that a government handout? As for the airline pilots, etc, if United, AA, GE, Greyhound, et al decided to build their own hospitals instead of giving their employees health insurance, that would not be socialist either - just a decision by the employer. Socialism is giving government resources to those who have not earned them:

USG deposits 2K/month in Joe Trailerpark's bank account: socialist - handout for no work
USG pays Blue Cross/Aetna/etc insurance premiums for Joe Trailerpark: socialist - handout for no work
USG funds hospitals to give free treatment to Joe Trailerpark: socialist - handout for no work


USG deposits 2K/month in PFC Snuffy's bank account: compensation for services rendered
USG pays Blue Cross/Aetna/etc insurance premiums for PFC Snuffy: compensation for services rendered
USG funds hospitals to give free treatment to PFC Snuffy instead of paying premiums: compensation for services rendered

As for the training value of mil hospitals, stories occasionally come up about the free cosmetic procedures the military offers to keep the plastic surgeon's skills up between deployments. Certainly, civilians could provide services more efficiently (and do in areas such as dental care for dependents), but if you fire all the military medical personnel it'll be hard to find civilian docs willing to leave their practice at a moments notice to sit in a tent in the middle of the desert or on a boat for 6 months.

Good point on the socialist military, though - we could probably save money by hiring the surplus regional airline pilots for 20K/year to take over CONUS rescues - the only place where we really need military personnel in the USCG would be overseas. No need for stateside training/proficiency.

I gotcha. You are OK with government run, single-payer health care, just not free government run, single-payer health care.

 

[SkywardET]

I gotcha. You are OK with government run, single-payer health care, just not free government run, single-payer health care.

First point; nothing is free. Doctors Without Boarders might use volunteer doctors. Do you wish to rely on people attending a decade of additional school to become doctors for the purpose of volunteering their services for free?

Second point; of what use is your rhetorical argument if it cannot be applied? Semantics aside, yes systems like TRICARE and the VA are government administered programs, but they rely upon a resource pool (i.e. tax base and debt sale) far, far larger than the one available by those who benefit from those systems.

 

[Pepe]

Just a little more fuel on the fire as far as taxation and expenses are concerned.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

[Random8145]

On a sidenote, those who mention about people being forced to pay Social Security taxes, I resent that as well (being forced to pay into a retirement fund mandated by the government; it's one thing to be forced to pay into a retirement fund, okay, but another to have to pay into one the government specifies).

As for this current bill, the insanity of it is that every other program before it has balooned out of control in cost, so it was insanity to ram it through and pass it. The only way to pay for it is going to be a VAT tax and even then it likely will not work. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Massachusettes, Tennessee, etc...Massachusettes alone's costs are so out-of-control now that the governor there is talking price controls.

And we all know what happens when you implement price controls: RATIONING.

And Sarah Palin likely wasn't wrong about the idea of the "death panels" either. They might start off in a strictly advisory capacity, but in the UK they have what's called the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), which started off in an advisory capacity as well, now it gets to decide who gets what treatments and so forth.

I could imagine if/when Obamacare goes the way of Massachusettes (and it will, they all do) and balloons out of control in cost, and then if price controls are recommended especially, these advisory panels will convert to being able to make actual decisions, to aid in the rationing.

And then of course it allowed the government to turn the health insurance companies into utilities and nationalize the student loan program.

The very notion that government, an entity that is legendary for inefficiency and waste, could deliver services better than the private sector would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that the government actually made this bill law.

 

[SkywardET]

And then of course it allowed the government to turn the health insurance companies into utilities and nationalize the student loan program.

Indeed. Expect a far more rapid increase in tuition prices over time, now that the already low resistance to lend wll be reduced even more.

There's going to be all kinds of fun stuff happening with regard to health care and health insurance thanks to this bill. It will be very amusing to watch as people opt for the tax penalty over health insurance, at least until they need it. Well, it will be as amusing as watching a slow-motion train wreck. Horrible, but you just can't take your eyes off the spectacle...

And of course, few are willing to admit that it was because of government subsidies to health insurance companies that they are so large and in the position they are in now. The bastardization of the term "insurance" can be blamed on many; but aren't you glad that people can be insured against the "risk" of an annual check-up?

 

[Random8145]

And of course, few are willing to admit that it was because of government subsidies to health insurance companies that they are so large and in the position they are in now. The bastardization of the term "insurance" can be blamed on many; but aren't you glad that people can be insured against the "risk" of an annual check-up?

Government subsidies, the exemption from anti-trust laws, and the law banning people from being able to purchase health insurance across state lines, all have helped mess up the system (notice none of this is free-market).

 

[HercDriver]

And Sarah Palin likely wasn't wrong about the idea of the "death panels" either. They might start off in a strictly advisory capacity, but in the UK they have what's called the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), which started off in an advisory capacity as well, now it gets to decide who gets what treatments and so forth.

Your kidding, right? What "they" are you talking about. There is no panel, counsel, institute, cabal, or any other "they"; the provision simply calls for "consultation between the individual and a practitioner."

The section the former Gov kept blathering about was where a physician would be reimbursed for talking with his or her patient about what kind of care they would want at the end of their life (living will/no resus/etc.). It would be patient driven (optional, not mandatory), and done every five years with the patient making the decisions (not some phone panel). So you could find out if your elderly grandmother would rather die at home among her family than at a hospital before she is incapacitated.

These consultations are happening already; the provision will simply make them more widespread.

 

[exhelodrvr]

And Sarah Palin likely wasn't wrong about the idea of the "death panels" either. They might start off in a strictly advisory capacity, but in the UK they have what's called the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), which started off in an advisory capacity as well, now it gets to decide who gets what treatments and so forth.

I could imagine if/when Obamacare goes the way of Massachusettes (and it will, they all do) and balloons out of control in cost, and then if price controls are recommended especially, these advisory panels will convert to being able to make actual decisions, to aid in the rationing.

Clearly there will be "death panels", or rationing boards, or whatever doublespeak name you want to give them. The administrators will have to do that; it is the only possible way that the available resources (which will very likely be fewer than currently) can be spread out to "cover" everybody.

 

[mmx1]

Clearly there will be "death panels", or rationing boards, or whatever doublespeak name you want to give them. The administrators will have to do that; it is the only possible way that the available resources (which will very likely be fewer than currently) can be spread out to "cover" everybody.

So what does that make an insurance company that refuses to pay for treatment? Or denies coverage to someone with pre-existing conditions? Since there's no public option to speak of, the only "administrators" that could ration resources are private insurers.

Unless you propose that we have unlimited resources, there will always be people who will be denied the level of treatment they desire. Is that "murder"?

 

[exhelodrvr]

So what does that make an insurance company that refuses to pay for treatment? Or denies coverage to someone with pre-existing conditions? Since there's no public option to speak of, the only "administrators" that could ration resources are private insurers.

Unless you propose that we have unlimited resources, there will always be people who will be denied the level of treatment they desire. Is that "murder"?

The difference, and it's a huge difference, is that the insurarance companies make the decision, not the government. And the people with the insurance policies choose in advance, based on the policies they purchase.

 

[mmx1]

So it's only murder when the government does it? Funny, usually it's the other way around.

And what of the people who previously would have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions? I guess the insurance company denied them that choice. Is that morally superior to the government making a choice?

And what choices is the government making? There is no public option, so what would the government be rationing?

 

[Flash]

Clearly there will be "death panels", or rationing boards, or whatever doublespeak name you want to give them. The administrators will have to do that; it is the only possible way that the available resources (which will very likely be fewer than currently) can be spread out to "cover" everybody.

Wow, way to twist the issue. What you describe as a 'death panel' is the same decisions that doctors, insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid make today, namely what treatments are worth the investment in resources for a particular patient or a particular procedure should be reimbursed at what cost, but no one calls them 'death panels'. It is a simple fact of life in the medical world, wake the fuck up, to think otherwise is simple ignorance of the basic facts. If you want extra treatment above and beyond what either are willing to pay then you can pay for it yourself and will still be able to do so. A key difference between the current/future US system and many other 'national' health care systems is that you have that option, in some 'national' health care systems you don't have the option to go outside the system.

Here is a nice summary of origin and the facts of the whole death panel bullshit from Governor Palin's Facebook post.