Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Nationalized Health Care

  1. #1
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,756

    Nationalized Health Care

    I'm surprised we haven't heard more about how American industry could become more competitive globally and if we had a nationalized health care system. Right now employers are footing a major part of the country's medical bill. A nationalized health care system would remove that direct cost to the industries (and consumers).

  2. #2
         
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    just back from a massive dog fight session
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post
    I'm surprised we haven't heard more about how American industry could become more competitive globally and if we had a nationalized health care system. Right now employers are footing a major part of the country's medical bill. A nationalized health care system would remove that direct cost to the industries (and consumers).
    Well the UK has a nationalised system, and trust me our industries are struggling as badly as any country's is now.

    Ultimately, a nationalised healthcare system would have to be funded via contributions through tax...which last time I looked would come direct from the consumers...

  3. #3
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,756
    Quote Originally posted by HarryFossettsHat View post
    which last time I looked would come direct from the consumers...
    Not with exporting.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian cellophane's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2009
    Location
    louisville, ky
    Posts
    285
    i had a good discussion about this with my uncle over christmas. he and his wife both work in the local hospital as administrative staff for different doctors (i dont know the specific titles or jobs, just that they are into the system.) they (doctors officies in general) spend a huge portion of their time filling out paperwork because there are 15,000 different insurance options and packages and every single one of them uses different forms. if they all used one form, they would be able to do the same amount of patient files in 10% of the time. that just dropped your expenses at the office by an exponential number.

    the biggest issue with the healthcare system now isnt the lack of funding, its that like so many other industries - it is completely top heavy. the money to subsidize the care of people who otherwise cannot afford it is already in the system but it doesnt make past the pockets of top executives. my uncle had an example of an executive who had over 1 billion dollars in stock options and had an annual salary that was pretty close to that number. combined with the lack of managed care (i think that's the term) the system is rapidly failing. european socialized health care differs from ours because they qualify each and every person for a procedure.

    for example:
    a patient has a heart attack.
    the patient is 65
    has smoked since they were 15
    has a family history of heart problems
    is overweight and has a sedentary lifestyle

    in america - this person would be put on a list for a new heart and would receive any number of procedures to 'save them' - if they are on medicare or medicade - guess who is paying for all of that.

    in europe - this same person would not receive a new heart and may or may not be eligible for additional treatment depending on how they react. if they change their lifestyle and quit smoking (this is verified by the hospitals) they get placed on a waitlist and remain as long as their lifestyle remains healthy. if they start smoking or eating mcdonalds 6 days a week - they are off the list for good.

    now - im all for having access to the best care you can get. if you have 10 million dollars to spend on private healthcare you should be able to go see any doctor you want and pay out of pocket with no socialized help for that care. for the rest of us, i for one am all for an efficient, streamlined system of socialized care.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by cellophane View post
    ..... i for one am all for an efficient, streamlined system of socialized care.
    The entire medical industry needs to be socialized and regulated like power companies are/were regulated. i.e. We guarantee you a profit every year, of between 6% and 8%. Any extra profit generated MUST be put back into medical infrastructure and equipment.

    Mandate everyone be covered
    Payroll tax of 10% to be paid by everyone
    Medicare, Medicaid, and related gov health are dissolved and rolled into the new National System
    Mandate one set of medical forms for all insurers and hospitals

    Efficient and available to everyone.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  6. #6
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    The entire medical industry needs to be socialized and regulated like power companies are/were regulated. i.e. We guarantee you a profit every year, of between 6% and 8%. Any extra profit generated MUST be put back into medical infrastructure and equipment.

    Mandate everyone be covered
    Payroll tax of 10% to be paid by everyone
    Medicare, Medicaid, and related gov health are dissolved and rolled into the new National System
    Mandate one set of medical forms for all insurers and hospitals

    Efficient and available to everyone.
    Are you suggesting a government-sponsored and directed corporation (like a Fannie Mae-type organization) or a new federal bureaucracy?

  7. #7
    Cyburbian cellophane's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2009
    Location
    louisville, ky
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    The entire medical industry needs to be socialized and regulated like power companies are/were regulated. i.e. We guarantee you a profit every year, of between 6% and 8%. Any extra profit generated MUST be put back into medical infrastructure and equipment.

    Mandate everyone be covered
    Payroll tax of 10% to be paid by everyone
    Medicare, Medicaid, and related gov health are dissolved and rolled into the new National System
    Mandate one set of medical forms for all insurers and hospitals

    Efficient and available to everyone.
    i agree - but good luck getting that through congress who is busy getting their pockets lined with lobbyist dollars. there is too much money and too much bureaucracy for something so elegantly simple to make it without executive orders. if it did make it they would find a way to screw it up within a decade.

    however - the only part i dont agree with is the mandate that everyone be covered. some people dont want to be covered - for what ever reason. but if that is the only point i dont agree with i cant complain :p

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Are you proposing a government-sponsored and directed corporation or a new bureaucracy?
    We already HAVE the bureaucracy, the focus needs to shift within from the elderly to all citizens.

    Quote Originally posted by cellophane View post
    ......
    however - the only part i dont agree with is the mandate that everyone be covered. some people dont want to be covered - for what ever reason. but if that is the only point i dont agree with i cant complain :p
    Allowing the rich to opt out, is not a good idea. If they want to pay more for additional services, fine. Allowing an opt out also lands a system in the same place it is now. What happens later when those who opt out decide to opt in when they finally need the system for whatever reason. How do you force them to pay for what they should have been paying all along. Do you tell them tough, you opted out? Allowing an Opt Out is unworkable.
    Last edited by Gedunker; 24 Feb 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason: seq. posts
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  9. #9
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,667
    The Canadian system seems to work pretty well, so that might be worth looking into. I think that they have universal health insurance similar to the US Medicare, but for everybody. I don't believe that a payroll tax is the right way to go because that puts an undue burden on healthy workers while the biggest users are people who are sick and usually unable to work. I'd prefer the tax be on all income from all sources (ie, income tax).

    In addition to lowering health costs for employers, universal health insurance would make small businesses more competitive in hiring and retaining talented employees. It would also allow more people to start or continue in their own businesses like farmers, various free-lancers/consultants, contractors, etc. I think it would spur entrepreneurship -- and make for a healthier populace because most people wouldn't wait until they were dangerously ill before seeking medical help, which is what happens when people don't have insurance now.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    Allowing the rich to opt out, is not a good idea. If they want to pay more for additional services, fine. Allowing an opt out also lands a system in the same place it is now. What happens later when those who opt out decide to opt in when they finally need the system for whatever reason. How do you force them to pay for what they should have been paying all along. Do you tell them tough, you opted out? Allowing an Opt Out is unworkable.
    If there are admission criteria for certain procedures, however, as cellophane had pointed out in his initial post, and someone with the means to pay for the service without aid is denied the procedure when he would not have been a burden to the system, there is something seriously flawed with the system. Having a nationalized health care system (at least using the argument of health care being a right, not privilege) should promote some aspect of liberty to compensate for it's monopolization and/or nationalization of an entire (largely still) private industry. I also wouldn't recommend implementing such a program while we're still in a recession. Even if it would work as proposed and wound up cutting costs and promoting economic prosperity, the market would not react kindly for some time, mainly psychologically, but such psychoses translate to behavior patterns in investors.

    P.S. I personally don't agree with the concept. I don't agree with it's aims. I'm merely entertaining it as a possibility.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian cellophane's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2009
    Location
    louisville, ky
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    Allowing the rich to opt out, is not a good idea. If they want to pay more for additional services, fine. Allowing an opt out also lands a system in the same place it is now. What happens later when those who opt out decide to opt in when they finally need the system for whatever reason. How do you force them to pay for what they should have been paying all along. Do you tell them tough, you opted out? Allowing an Opt Out is unworkable.
    if you opt out then you opt out. you cant opt back in. this isnt a marketing scheme where they want your email or phone number. eitherway - the option to pay (out of pocket) for additional services would almost need to be mandatory, as would the option to pay (out of pocket) for non essential (vanity) procedures.

    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    The Canadian system seems to work pretty well, so that might be worth looking into. I think that they have universal health insurance similar to the US Medicare, but for everybody. I don't believe that a payroll tax is the right way to go because that puts an undue burden on healthy workers while the biggest users are people who are sick and usually unable to work.
    statistically the bulk of health care costs come from people over the age of 65. smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and people that eat mcdonalds everyday generally cost less over their lifespan than healthier people who live to be 100 since they die much earlier (55-60) and have no long term costs like a nursing home.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    If there are admission criteria for certain procedures, however, as cellophane had pointed out in his initial post, and someone with the means to pay for the service without aid is denied the procedure when he would not have been a burden to the system, there is something seriously flawed with the system.
    i think im reading this right -

    the whole point i was trying to make was that our current system does not manage its risks and gives out anything to anyone as long as they are on medicare / medicaid - which any procedure on medicare is a losing proposition for the doctors involved. they will not recoup their expenses.

    if you called a plumber for a stopped up toilet and he came out and said that they needed to replace the entire system instead of just fixing that toilet what would you say to him? the whole point is to minimize risks and losses in the system. why would you replace the heart of the patient i used as an example above?
    Last edited by Gedunker; 24 Feb 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason: seq. posts

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    ......It would also allow more people to start or continue in their own businesses like farmers, various free-lancers/consultants, contractors, etc. I think it would spur entrepreneurship -- and make for a healthier populace because most people wouldn't wait until they were dangerously ill before seeking medical help, which is what happens when people don't have insurance now.
    It would be huge for small business. Many small business owners go without insurance for themselves as well as their employees because it is to much of a burden.

    There is still going to be some form of money collection from people. Nobody is talking FREE health care, as of in no cost in money. So business will continue to be the funnel of collection used by the government, just as payroll taxes are.

    The difference is that even temp or part time employees in those starter jobs are covered and the manager of the paperwork for business is much reduced because the business accountant will be the one managing the tax info. The health care system and gov. regulators then have the burden. Freeing business to be more creative with less cost.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  13. #13
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally posted by HarryFossettsHat View post
    Ultimately, a nationalised healthcare system would have to be funded via contributions through tax...which last time I looked would come direct from the consumers...
    One of the things that Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) brought up in the 2004 election (she ran for the democratic presidential nomination) which has stayed with me is that we already pay for uninsured coverage through tax dollars. A major argument for a nationalized system is that this money would/could be spent more efficiently to cover everyone using no more money than we currently expend.

    Now, I don't pretend to know the details of the way the system works now and how it could work in the future to say if that is actually feasible, but it was the center point of her platform and she had been working on the plan for 5-7 years prior to that so I have some confidence in that claim. It was also widely supported and hailed as feasible by many of her Democratic opponents in 2004.

    The way things work now, if someone walks into any public hospital in the US they MUST be treated and cannot be turned away, regardless of coverage (not so at a private hospital). So, if such people are indigent or otherwise unable to pay, the state foots some of the bill and the rest is paid for with federal tax dollars. One problem in recent years has been that the feds have reimbursed states for a smaller and smaller percentage of unpaid costs, putting the burden on state coffers that are already in trouble. New Mexico pays a seriously hefty amount of uncovered medical services and now that oil and natural gas revenues are down (our big ticket items as far as state income) we will definitely be running a deficit this year. A big deficit (but hey, it could be worse - we could be California...)

    Ensuring coverage also creates the possibility that a person can maintain a long term relationship with a particular doctor (a no brainer as far as quality health care, but surprisingly infrequent even for those with coverage as employers often change insurance companies yearly searching for the best rates). Those without coverage tend to go to urgent or emergency care when an acute crisis occurs. If even a percentage of these folks entered into a relationship with a consistent doctor to manage, say, diabetes (we have a very large percentage of diabetics in NM) their health could be better managed and crises averted, reducing the overall cost of services. This would not cover 100 percent of the people, of course, but even a modest improvement in preventative care could create a huge financial savings.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  14. #14
    Cyburbian safege's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Golden Valley MN
    Posts
    713
    My complaint on this subject is a definition of terms. What other countries that have cut health care costs have is wage and price controls.

    What we in the U.S. keep yammering about is insurance regulation.

    It's like comparing bike paths to bike path signage rules.
    Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent.
    -Larry Wall

  15. #15
    Cyburbian ofos's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Slightly Off-Center
    Posts
    8,258
    Seems to be one of the main points of tonight's speech to Congress. Gonna stimulate the economy, save us from Medicare failure, etc. Gee, is there someone in his administration that tried to push that a few administrations ago? I'm surprised it took nearly a month.
    “Death comes when memories of the past exceed the vision for the future.”

  16. #16
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    http://www.newyorker.com./reporting/...a_fact_gawande

    Atul Gawande is a Turkish professor/practicing surgeon who writes for the New Yorker. His recent article (link above) was pretty good but held short of calling for single-payer.

    He claimed that working with the mess we have would be preferable to reinventing the wheel based on ideology.

    It appears to me that our industry is moving more and more toward shaking off any responsibility for health care anyway.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by fringe View post
    ....
    It appears to me that our industry is moving more and more toward shaking off any responsibility for health care anyway.
    It was a gimmick used during WW II that allowed different industries to compete for labor. Prices were fixed as were wages for the most part, therefore, industry found a loophole that allowed them to compete for scarce labor in high demand.

    It should never have been lodged in the business function to start with.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  18. #18
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    I'd prefer us to move to a public/private hybrid, similar to the French or Swiss systems, rather than a full-blown public system like the British or Canadians.

    Our entire medical research apparatus already is a public/private endeavor - and is the most successful in the history of the world. Places like the NIH, other government labs, public research universities, etc are funded primarily through public means. However, you've also got some private money flowing in - and more importantly, the public institutions maintain some control over patents developed in-house, meaning additional revenue streams. The private institutions operating alongside help insure that a certain level of efficiency is upheld, even if they're not working on every project, because there's always the idea that if you're extremely successful in research but don't get all of your motivation from moving up the public sector chain (which for many people is enough, but not for all people) - "industry" awaits. (My fiance is in biotech and recently finished a post doc and is now in the private sector)

    There are large amounts of medical research that would never be done in a private-only system, and having the public/private mix ensures that everything is looked at - not simply that research that could potentially make money. Similar incentives cause the same problem in health care - certain people are simply money losers for a private-only health care industry. At the same time though, a public-only system removes some incentives which are healthy to society as a whole.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    44

    Thanks but no thanks

    As a former congressional staffer, I have seen firsthand how badly managed existing government sponsored health care can be. Tricare, the VA and SSA can screw it up like nobody's business.

    I have had to tell veterans that they will have to start the entire applying for benefits/treatment all over again because someone at the VA lost their file. Worse, I've had to tell them that they will not get treated because their military records were lost in a fire and there is no way for the military to confirm they were at the site of some chemical spill or other event that has caused them to become seriously, if not fatally, ill. I've had to take sobbing phone calls from spouses and girlfriends of vets who have committed suicide because Tricare takes too long to approve their PTSD care.

    I've had (literally) deathbed calls from people who can't get the SSA to approve their disability benefits. One young mom with three kids called me from HOSPICE, begging for help as she had less than a month to live. One guy drove his elderly mother to the hospital after a stroke - SSA (Medicare) refused to cover it because she didn't arrive by ambulance, ergo it was not an emergency and she should have gone to her primary care physician first for a referral.

    If this government cannot serve these limited populations competently, how on earth can we expect them to properly manage the rest of the population?

  20. #20
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    ^^^None of that sounds any worse than any number of stories that we've all heard about people dealing with HMO's, private insurance companies, or private health plans. And we're not even getting into stories of the completely uninsured.

    The approval ratings on VA care in particular is off the chart - bad things happen within any bureaucracy, private or public. The trick is limited the bad things and preventing the same bad thing from happening multiple times.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  21. #21
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,659
    Blog entries
    5
    As a person who has been uninsured for the last five years this issue is very important to me. I cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions in the private sector market and no employers I have worked for offered insurance either. I've managed to cobble together enough care from the student health clinic, sliding fee clinics, and some of my drugs come through pharmaceutical assistance programs. I dread getting seriously ill or having an accident because that would kill me financially.

    Everybody already pays for uninsured care through higher insurance premiums, reduced quality of care, higher billing rates (why do you think a bandaid costs $3 in a hospital?), most municipalities and counties dedicate a portion of their budget to indigent care at local hospitals, etc. Doctors also have incredible overhead due to insurance billing labyrinths.

    I am not advocating for a single public health care system. I think that there can be a hybrid system that would work effectively and reforms put in place that would provide coverage to most everyone.

    1. Require that all employers offer health insurance or pay a percentage of payroll dollars into the public system that its employees could then access. Much like the current medicare tax-1.45% from the employee and matched by the employer.

    2. In the self-obtained insurance market get rid of the exclusionary, cherry picking process of providing coverage. Everyone should have equal access not just those that have perfect health.

    3. Enact reform in the insurance billing area. One uniform billing form for all insurance companies, much like a 1040 tax form.

    4. Require all private insurance plans to offer a minimum basket of goods which would be the same offered by the public health insurance plan.

    5. The public health plan should not be without a premium or dues, just like Medicare. It shouldn't break the bank and those below a certain threshold should be exempted from a premium. Also a nominal co-pay $1-$10 for services/drugs should be charged.

    Health care should be a human right, not a privilege.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  22. #22
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally posted by kjelsadek View post
    As a person who has been uninsured for the last five years this issue is very important to me. I cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions in the private sector market and no employers I have worked for offered insurance either. I've managed to cobble together enough care from the student health clinic, sliding fee clinics, and some of my drugs come through pharmaceutical assistance programs. I dread getting seriously ill or having an accident because that would kill me financially.

    Everybody already pays for uninsured care through higher insurance premiums, reduced quality of care, higher billing rates (why do you think a bandaid costs $3 in a hospital?), most municipalities and counties dedicate a portion of their budget to indigent care at local hospitals, etc. Doctors also have incredible overhead due to insurance billing labyrinths.

    I am not advocating for a single public health care system. I think that there can be a hybrid system that would work effectively and reforms put in place that would provide coverage to most everyone.

    1. Require that all employers offer health insurance or pay a percentage of payroll dollars into the public system that its employees could then access. Much like the current medicare tax-1.45% from the employee and matched by the employer.

    2. In the self-obtained insurance market get rid of the exclusionary, cherry picking process of providing coverage. Everyone should have equal access not just those that have perfect health.

    3. Enact reform in the insurance billing area. One uniform billing form for all insurance companies, much like a 1040 tax form.

    4. Require all private insurance plans to offer a minimum basket of goods which would be the same offered by the public health insurance plan.

    5. The public health plan should not be without a premium or dues, just like Medicare. It shouldn't break the bank and those below a certain threshold should be exempted from a premium. Also a nominal co-pay $1-$10 for services/drugs should be charged.

    Health care should be a human right, not a privilege.
    Excellent points. The only people who don't think health insurance and health care system need "fixing" are people who already have relatively cheap health care through their employers, don't have health insurance and have never been seriously ill, or are wealthy enough to not find paying $1,000-$1,500 a month for private health insurance a hardship.

  23. #23
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by kjelsadek View post
    Health care should be a human right, not a privilege.
    I was actually going to come in here and post this, but you beat me to it.

    I don't even mind having to help pay for health insurance through payroll deductions, as long as it's affordable.

    The real problem comes from those people who will choose not to work because they know they'll still get free health care. What do we do with these people?
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  24. #24
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I was actually going to come in here and post this, but you beat me to it.

    I don't even mind having to help pay for health insurance through payroll deductions, as long as it's affordable.

    The real problem comes from those people who will choose not to work because they know they'll still get free health care. What do we do with these people?
    The poor (ie, people who are on welfare or SSI because of disability) already qualify for Medicaid so we already pay for them. The elderly who are 65 or older are covered by Medicare (which is paid for by a combination of premiums and tax monies). If you are talking about the homeless, most of them are already eligible for Medicaid or Medicare but don't use the services (most homeless suffer either from mentall illness or from alcoholism or drug abuse).

    I think that rolling Medicaid into a general health insurance system for everyone would make more welfare recipients more willing to get off the dole because they wouldn't lose their health care if they took a minimum wage. Many welfare mothers literally cannot afford to get off welfare because they need health care for their kids.

  25. #25
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    If there are admission criteria for certain procedures, however, as cellophane had pointed out in his initial post, and someone with the means to pay for the service without aid is denied the procedure when he would not have been a burden to the system, there is something seriously flawed with the system. Having a nationalized health care system (at least using the argument of health care being a right, not privilege) should promote some aspect of liberty to compensate for it's monopolization and/or nationalization of an entire (largely still) private industry. I also wouldn't recommend implementing such a program while we're still in a recession. Even if it would work as proposed and wound up cutting costs and promoting economic prosperity, the market would not react kindly for some time, mainly psychologically, but such psychoses translate to behavior patterns in investors.

    P.S. I personally don't agree with the concept. I don't agree with it's aims. I'm merely entertaining it as a possibility.
    Cellophane later on in the thread answered her part of the question.

    As far as health care supporting freedom, I guess I don't understand the notion of freedom. If your talking about the freedom to die a horrible death, possibly long and filled with pain and agony because you can't afford health care, I really don't understand. Health care is not a fight against some nebulous communist socialist threat. Providing health care to all, is not anti-business or anti-market. In fact, removing it from the business realm, frees business to do what they do without being burdened directly by needing extra staff and expenses to administer programs. It allows them to tell the employee to go to the doctor without worry. Your idea that it will poison the business climate is exactly the opposite of reality.

    I will make you an honest bet (A whole bender at a laefest if we ever attend one together), that over the next year or two, big business will line up behind Obama and help pass such reform.

    It should be a human right

    A new set of boobs for vanities sake, are elective and should be paid out of pocket. A new set of boobs for reconstruction after breast surgery, should be covered.

    If your feet are going numb from uncontrollable diabetes, and you cant even get the drugs to help you due to no insurance, that's wrong.

    Many things could be added to this list.

    Power is cheaper when regulated (tell California its not ) and health care will be as well. We have a model and we have a system in place that knows how to do it. Cause you know, a guaranteed profit every year is so anti business.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. The health care bill
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 87
    Last post: 28 Mar 2010, 7:20 PM
  2. Health by Hillary AKA Clinton Care.
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 78
    Last post: 19 Sep 2007, 4:21 PM
  3. Health Care: US vs. Canada
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 18
    Last post: 25 Aug 2004, 10:25 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Dec 2003, 3:38 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last post: 09 Oct 2003, 7:38 PM