GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel
Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.
That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Obviously they weren't regulated enough.
If the government is granting a corporation a national monopoly, they should also regulate the living shit out of said corporation, so that the people on whose behalf the government is granting said monopoly don't get fucked right in the ass by said company (and it's government granted monopoly).
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel
Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.
That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"
Republicans love corporate pork. For some reason, they hate government pork. I wonder why that is?
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
And that is the point. Once it was DEREGULATED there was competition, prices fell, and the consumer benefited.
Government intervention in the marketplace = bad
Free Markets = Good
Note: Oversight is by government is needed to ensure that positions are not being misrepresented such as in the case with Enron.
I can CHOOSE to take my money and spend it elsewhere...at a DIFFERENT company...if I do not like the services I am receiving from that company.
With government, I cannot CHOOSE to take my business elsewhere.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
You can also choose to take your ball and go to some other country to play, so that reason doesn't really cut it.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
LOL - So the majority of the country that is fine should change to suite the minority of the country yet you are tell me, who is in the majority that I should get out?
Look, this should really be left up to the states. If I want single payer I can go to a single payer state like Oregon.
If you understood the foundations of the party you would already know the answer to your question.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
You're not the "majority", as evidenced by the last election. The people want the goverment to fix the health care issue. It seems nobody can agree on exactly what needs fixed let alone how to fix it, so the fucked up politicians will fix it whatever way works the best for them and gives them the most power over US.
We would be best served with a single payer system but everybody thinks they would be getting screwed somehow??
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Only if you equate "can't afford" with "choose"
Since the majority of people are currently not paying their own bills, it's not surprising that they are satsified. That doesn't mean that they have any where near a realistic understanding of the sustainability of that situation. And yet, over 50% consistently say that reform (not tweaking) is needed.
Tweaking a bad model is what got us where we are -- a health care model that is bankrupting individuals, companies, and government at all levels. No other country has found a way to "tweak" that into an acceptable system.
Dear god, read The Constitution. Your last sentence really is very scary "We would be best served..."
I'm not surprised really. You've bought the "OMG! Crisis! Crisis! Crisis!" mantra hook line and sinker.
"The goverment is the cause of, not the solution to our problems."
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
First of all you didnt answer the question. He asked if you were for rationing.
Second, it is widely known the profit margins in the healthcare industry are less than 10%. Why would you advocate 200%?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: Patranus
Its not about what the people want...
..They (the Democrats) know what is best for you...
...just shut up and take it
Just like the Republicans knew that we all wanted to go fight a pointless war in Iraq, for no reason at all, since it's been proven there was no connection to 9/11. Right?
According to the polls and senate confirmations? Yes. Or have you forgotten?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel
Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.
That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"
That is absolute truth.
The rest of your post...well...what color is the sky in your world?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel
Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.
That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"
Republicans love corporate pork. For some reason, they hate government pork. I wonder why that is?
Have you taken a look at contributions to the Dems?
Are out of high school yet? Im not trying to be insulting....
There may be some who think that way. Others think that those who HAVE are deluding themselves about what they "have" and the sustainability of the current system. Like Rick Wagoner, who told us a year ago that a GM bankruptcy was out of the question, they think that what they HAVE is somehow sacrosanct; that they companies will continue accept escalating medical costs. The GM board knew 15 years ago that it had a big problem with the continuing committment to health care coverage but they couldn't bring themselves to admit it; they stood by and let health care reform get buried by misinformation. Most UAW members didn't have a clue about how precarious their own benefits were until just a few years ago.
Now people here and elsewhere who have with employee-paid health insurance are arguing about about losing coverage because of a government plan -- completely oblivious to the fact that major employers have been saying for years that the current model is unsustainable. I haven't seen a single word in all this talk about keeping what you have that acknowleges the position of HR executives: major employers cannot afford to continue letting people do that. Most of the open enrollment brochures last November had fewer choices (and higher co-pays) than before and we can expect to see more of the same this year.
People bandy about terms like "free market" and "competition" with no understanding whatsoever of basic economics and the factors that have led every other industrialized country to conclude that they are inappropriate to the field of health care. They ignore the rationing practiced every day in the US and prefer worry about extreme --usually distorted in some way -- case somewhere else that proves that nothing is perfect. And while they bemoan the potential cost to the government, they seem to be insensible to the financial devastation visted upon millions of people who have insurance by medical bills, or the employees of the 60% of small business who offer no coverage at all because they cannot affortd. These are not temporary situations brought on by the current recession; these problems have been decades in the making.
Surveys indicate that the elderly -- who benefit from the larges "government run" health policy in the country -- are opposed to reform. They (and their children) are appareantly unaware that unless we make some very big changes, their healthcare is going to eat us all out of house and home.
Health care reform is not about the 40-50 million uninsured. It is about the security of every man, woman, and child in this country. It is not about the "haves" and the "have nots", it is about the financial viability of every company and our position in world markets. Health reform is not a poverty program.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I, for the most part, agree with the majority of your post which is funny, because I know you and I are on opposite sides on the healthcare debate. Nevertheless, so far as the bolded statement is concerned...all I can offer is anecdotal. I personally know (like Christmas card know) about 10 families who's net worth is well over 10 million. Two are over 50 million. I have met (through my previous job, as clients) over 100 families over the 10 million dollar mark, and I can tell you your assesment about how those who "have" think is false. There may be a fractional amount of the ultra rich who think that way, but the majority do not.
I apparently didn't make myself clear. I wasn't referring to those who "HAVE" a lot of money -- this whole debate is largely irrelevant to them since no matter what happens, they will have the resources to get anything they want/need. When I referenced "HAVE", I was referring to those who currently have adequate health coverage.
And for the record: Althought I am definitely in favor of raising marginal tax rates on top earners, I am very troubled by the idea of financing health reform that way. As I said in my other post, health care is a national security issue...and each one of us should be as willing to contribute as we are to the military, education, or any of the other myriad uses made of our tax dollars. Other countries manage to do a much better job with far less than we are currently spending on health care here, we ought to be able to do better.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Yeah. Because private industry has served us so fucking well.
I've had *GOOD* health insurance for the past 8 years, through employment. Other than the FIRST year, I've felt completely fucked in the ass by how much it costs. I actually got so pissed about it, that last year, I actually went back through and audited how much I paid in years prior. As a single, fairly healthy dude, with no kids, I have had to pay just shy of 90% out of pocket over the past 7 years (because most if not all of my costs for the year fall into my "coinsurance" range). On top of my company/ies paying on the order of $500-600 a month to insure me. Now you tell me, who is benefitting from my coverage? Because it certainly isn't me.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
First of all, the question wasn't posed to me, ass clown. I was making a statement, loosely based on the theme of his question ("reducing costs").
I didn't say that I was arguing for a 200% corporate profit margin. I said I would be willing to pay REASONABLE costs for things. Note how I used a little phrases "to manufacture" or "over manufacturing costs".
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
You sir, are a complete idiot.
It's been evident for some time (at least to anyone capable of independant thought) that "for profit", private insurance is the cause of, not the solution to our health care problems.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter