Government healthcare was good to me today.

[Throckmorton]

Yet in claiming responsibility for them, the government still isn't taking care of them either. So the free market would not have done any worse for them.

There's a difference between messing up, which happens in every sphere of human existence, and simply not being able to take care of the needs of a group of people because it's not profitable.

The government may have cut the phone lines, but the free market wouldn't have and didn't provide insurance in the first place. Tough to mess up something you don't have to deal with at all.

I might as well say "the Post Office took forever to deliver my mail, a private plane delivering it from Texas to Hawaii would have been faster"... Well maybe, but there IS NO private plane delivering mail from Texas to Hawaii that I can afford.

 

[soulcougher73]

Because it addresses them for majority of cases, and when it doesn't that is rightly considered a failure. But the outcome considered a "failure" for the government is actually the intended outcome of the free market approach, which is that only people who can afford to pay for medicines themselves get them. So you can take occasional failure of government system or intentional failure of the free market one.

I agree with this and i think it is the biggest point that needs to be made when talking about gov or free market healthcare. One will have mishaps/failures now and again but most of the time it is there for you. The free market approach is fuck it we dont care if you die, so its a lose/lose situation if you cant pay.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Because it addresses them for majority of cases, and when it doesn't that is rightly considered a failure. But the outcome considered a "failure" for the government is actually the intended outcome of the free market approach, which is that only people who can afford to pay for medicines themselves get them.

Really? So if I understand the situation correctly, Medicaid denied coverage due to a technicality, correct?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Really? So if I understand the situation correctly, Medicaid denied coverage due to a technicality, correct?

Think of it as a "feature"

 

[nick1985]

How is government run healthcare constitutional again? I missed that part in article 1 section 8

 

[senseamp]

Really? So if I understand the situation correctly, Medicaid denied coverage due to a technicality, correct?

Yes, the failure here is that Medicaid left patients to the free market.
Think about it. The failure case for government health care, one that both liberals and conservatives rightly criticize it for, is to leave patients to obtain health care in the free market.

 

[SammyJr]

The OP was written because of frustrations with the way the Federal Government handles its current obligations. Now obamacare will add a tremendous bureaucracy and tenfold obligations into the mix. The result will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Now sure why you are the only one here who does not see this.

Psst. Medicaid is run at the state level.

 

[soulcougher73]

How is government run healthcare constitutional again? I missed that part in article 1 section 8

The constitution is a living document meaning it can be ammended at anytime. So while it may not be in there now does not mean it cannot be in there someday. Times change. Roll with the punches. Find a new excuse already.

 

[SammyJr]

How is government run healthcare constitutional again? I missed that part in article 1 section 8

How was invading Iraq constitutional again?

 

[soulcougher73]

Really? So if I understand the situation correctly, Medicaid denied coverage due to a technicality, correct?

Yup it dropped the ball on this particular case. You are right. Unforunatly the free market is always fumbling.

 

[Atreus21]

Yup it dropped the ball on this particular case. You are right. Unforunatly the free market is always fumbling.

How?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am a UHC proponent and a libertarian which i know is pretty rare. I just want it done right is all if its going to be done.

I'm for insurance reform and getting more access, but I don't have loyalties to any particular political philosophy, unless "don't be an idiot" counts.

As a provider, I get to see what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, "health care reform" isn't. It's about politics, and the things which are involved in running what's probably the most complex human system ever, US health care", hasn't been closely looked at. Oh yes people can quote dollars, but what does it take to get you to see a doc and get better treatment? I mean in the real world?

UHC isn't a devil in my mind, but when we start regulating that which we do not understand (and I'd say the guy with the power falls into that category in today's case) then we have problems. Combine that with virtually unlimited restraints of power on those charged with enforcement, and you can see the problems.

Private or government health care makes no difference. If you cannot understand that politics is secondary to health then one has no business influencing it. As you say, do it right or not at all.

 

[JSt0rm]

Again thanks. The AIDS patients aren't too thrilled about it. Why don't you post your contact info here so they can tell you how great it's working for them?

Why dont you tell the aids patients to go get private insurance then?

 

[senseamp]

How?

How did the free market take care of that AIDS patient once the government safety net wasn't there? It basically said, that will be $$$$$$ for this medicine, if you don't have it, you are SOL. That's free market, if you don't have money, you don't get care.

 

[soulcougher73]

How?

Have you been following the thread? The free market did not jump in to help or save these people while medicaid made a mistake.

Think of it as:
Do you want (insert something here), but on a few rare occasions we will drop the ball and mess up? <--this being medicaid or even UHC for that matter.

OR

Do you want (insert something here) never? <--this being free market healthcare solution to medicaid.

I would rather have something most of the time instead of nothing all of the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Psst. Medicaid is run at the state level.

That is true, however it not independent of government failures, nor federal mandates. HIPAA was the excuse here. That was an act of Congress.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes, the failure here is that Medicaid left patients to the free market.

So you agree that Medicare let this guy die due to a technicality. Which, by the way, is the same excuse you guys use for private insurers -- "They let that guy die because they found a technicality in their policy to use as a cause for denial." So, how are they different again?

Think about it. The failure case for government health care, one that both liberals and conservatives rightly criticize it for, is to leave patients to obtain health care in the free market.

Really? The way I read the scenario is that Medicare was *obligated* to pay for this guy and did not due to a technicality, so therefore, he died. They didn't say "Sorry, we don't cover this, go find a private insurer to pay for it." They said "Yeah, we're supposed to pay for it, but there is this technicality and we're going to use that to shirk our obligation." Is that correct?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why dont you tell the aids patients to go get private insurance then?

Because anyone who would even think that way would be a dick.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The constitution is a living document meaning it can be ammended at anytime. So while it may not be in there now does not mean it cannot be in there someday. Times change. Roll with the punches. Find a new excuse already.

You bring up an interesting and often overlooked point. There is a PROPER way to amend the Constitution and many of us would not have a problem if a healthcare amendment were properly ratified and added to the Constitution. It is this interpretation (or misinterpretation, depending on your view) that upsets some of us.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm for insurance reform and getting more access, but I don't have loyalties to any particular political philosophy, unless "don't be an idiot" counts.

As a provider, I get to see what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, "health care reform" isn't. It's about politics, and the things which are involved in running what's probably the most complex human system ever, US health care", hasn't been closely looked at. Oh yes people can quote dollars, but what does it take to get you to see a doc and get better treatment? I mean in the real world?

UHC isn't a devil in my mind, but when we start regulating that which we do not understand (and I'd say the guy with the power falls into that category in today's case) then we have problems. Combine that with virtually unlimited restraints of power on those charged with enforcement, and you can see the problems.

Private or government health care makes no difference. If you cannot understand that politics is secondary to health then one has no business influencing it. As you say, do it right or not at all.

I agree. While i love the idea of UHC i just dont think the US can pull it off because it is a fucked up system of bought goverment power and special interests. But i do think technically speaking UHC is a feasible possibility if we can just get rid of the retards in power. It can be run correctly and efficiently if done properly. But this is the US and we cant see to do anything right anymore.

 

[senseamp]

So you agree that Medicare let this guy die due to a technicality. Which, by the way, is the same excuse you guys use for private insurers -- "They let that guy die because they found a technicality in their policy to use as a cause for denial." So, how are they different again?

Because when government does it, it's a failure. If private insurer does it, they are just performing their duty to their shareholders. It's by design.

Really? The way I read the scenario is that Medicare was *obligated* to pay for this guy and did not due to a technicality, so therefore, he died. They didn't say "Sorry, we don't cover this, go find a private insurer to pay for it." They said "Yeah, we're supposed to pay for it, but there is this technicality and we're going to use that to shirk our obligation." Is that correct?

They said they weren't going to pay for it, he was still free to obtain care in the private market, it just so happens that if you have $0 you get zero care in the private market and die. It's failure of government and success of free markets that this guy is dead.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How did the free market take care of that AIDS patient once the government safety net wasn't there? It basically said, that will be $$$$$$ for this medicine, if you don't have it, you are SOL. That's free market, if you don't have money, you don't get care.

Errrr, I thought the "government safety net" was supposed to protect you, not pass you off to the "free market" system. I thought it was supposed to catch those who fall through the cracks in the "free market" system. At least that is what you guys have been claiming all along.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

They said they weren't going to pay for it, he was still free to obtain care in the private market, it just so happens that if you have $0 you get zero care in the private market and die. It's failure of government and success of free markets that this guy is dead.

But they were OBLIGATED to pay for it. That is what you keep missing. If I am on a policy from Medicaid and it says "We'll cover you for cancer," then if I go in for cancer, it had better cover me. Medicaid failed this guy.

 

[senseamp]

Errrr, I thought the "government safety net" was supposed to protect you, not pass you off to the "free market" system. I thought it was supposed to catch those who fall through the cracks in the "free market" system. At least that is what you guys have been claiming all along.

I agree with you, the government should never let it's citizens fend for themselves in the free healthcare market.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because anyone who would even think that way would be a dick.

Well why are they even sucking on the government teet? They made poor choices in life yes? I say let the free markets rule - throw them in the gutter.