Healthcare "reform"?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by lawcat

This explains your position towards government pretty well. You are essentially disatisfied with the government and want the complete overhaul of the system. IMO, you are very likely to be against anything done on the federal level, until the overhaul is complete. I do not think it is possible to have a productive discourse on those premises.

No. I'm not necessarily against anything short of a complete overhaul. Though, I do have this small-government ideal that I would like to see us work towards. I see the size of government as being inversely proportional to economic vitality, remedied only by printing more money, and I see economic vitality as being inversely proportional to the requisite magnitude of entitlement programs. Vicious circle.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Well, sure... I guess we could do that, but then our senior citizens would no longer be able to afford their meds, and we'd have more mass migrations of elderly going to Canada to buy their prescriptions en masse, exactly as we did prior to 2003. The current healthcare reform, instead of simply repealing this and making the elderly fend for themselves, simply put provisions in place such that we can negotiate lower costs for bulk purchases, instead of paying retail value.

That is true...

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

To answer this question, all you have to do is read about it. CBO has some good information on their site. Your fear is understandable, but it should be alleviated by spending time educating yourself (in other words, it's not a good argument, since it's countered by the facts and shows that you haven't invested the time to understand those facts).

Yeah well, try as I might to learn things alone, sometimes I need help.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

So, you're suggesting that all citizens be able to purchase health insurance from providers in other states, instead of being limited to providers in their own states? Is that correct?

If so, do tell me... Are insurance providers in other states really that markedly different? Are they the utopia of insurance coverage... and the folks in Idaho have access to a level of coverage that is unheard of in New Mexico? I mean, really? We are all basically getting the same poor pathetic service no matter what state we live in. Going to a provider in another state isn't going to change that to any great extent. It's not like some states are the Xanadu of health insurance coverage trying to keep it all for themselves.

The failures in the current system are not the result of restrictions of going outside the state for coverage, since coverage in all 50 states is roughly equivalent and that equivalency is in how expensive and low quality they are.

Rediculous. Companies need sustained growth in order to keep and gain investors. If the interstate regulations were abolished, insurance companies would start to trend upwards or downwards to a greater degree than before, especially with Wall Street shifting funds from losers to winners. Then the insurance companies would be faced with a choice, either offer better prices and services or shrink into obscurity.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You keep failing to acknowledge how the cost quotas and rationing are EXACTLY what we are experiencing now from private insurers.

No we're not. ERs are required to take people, and that raises premiums which in turn causes policy droppage.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

It's time to realize that you are advocating a position where we retain the existing system despite the fact that it suffers from the exact failures you are trying to use in your arguments against single payer care.

The arguments for single payer care are made possible by Congress refusing to enforce discrimination laws against rescission by the insurance companies while also failing to promote a competitive free market environment.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

And yet you continue to argue based on misinformation and fear, essentially standing up in support of the current broken system. It is you who is speaking out of both sides of your mouth, my good man.

I'm voicing concern for the unforeseen consequences. You can always prove me wrong with these facts you speak of. Those who know so much about this bill should want to clear the air instead of just shutting out people like me who don't know everything.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Isn't the comment "it's just not acceptable to turn people away from the ER" an argument directly in support of the position for which I have been advocating, and an argument against your own?

I haven't argued against mandatory coverage, yet.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Also, your analogy is broken. People are prohibited from driving when they don't have auto insurance, but people are NOT prohibited from getting sick or having a catastrophic illness when they don't have health insurance. We don't have a choice of not getting sick, so we need coverage in case we do. So... back to the question I asked originally: Why are so many people okay with mandatory auto insurance, but not okay with mandatory health insurance? Are our cars more important than our health? I just don't get it...

That's exactly my point. And it's your analogy not mine.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Southtown

No. I'm not necessarily against anything short of a complete overhaul. Though, I do have this small-government ideal that I would like to see us work towards. I see the size of government as being inversely proportional to economic vitality

Well, China proves your assertion wrong.

Originally Posted by Southtown

No we're not. ERs are required to take people, and that raises premiums which in turn causes policy droppage.

Yet another argument in favor of providing care to everyone so premiums are held relatively steady.

Originally Posted by Southtown

The arguments for single payer care are made possible by Congress refusing to enforce discrimination laws against rescission by the insurance companies while also failing to promote a competitive free market environment.

Southie... I'll be blunt. You don't want a free market health care system. To be blunt, nobody in our country would accept free market healthcare. We would never allow it, neither the religious whackjobs nor the atheist liberals. Nobody would let such a thing stand.

A free market healthcare system is one in which people who cannot afford to care for themselves are allowed to get sicker and die. Bodies would pile up in the streets, children would be orphaned, and our society would quickly resemble something out of the middle ages.

The populace in our country would NEVER for one moment allow a free market healthcare system, since such a system would allow the poor to die in large numbers, as the free market approach is one which caters to those who are privileged and can afford things.

Now that this has been established, it's time to wake up to the fact that free market principles do not apply to healthcare, and it's time for us as a community to come up with the most intelligent and logical alternative... All indicators suggest that most logical and intelligent alternative is a single payer system.

Originally Posted by Southtown

I'm voicing concern for the unforeseen consequences.

I completely understand. It's called a slippery slope argument, and is a logical fallacy not worthy of any of our time or energy. You may as well be arguing that the passage of a single payer system will result in people sodomizing infants. It has no basis, and is not an argument that is in any way, shape, or form grounded in reality.

Originally Posted by Southtown

Those who know so much about this bill should want to clear the air instead of just shutting out people like me who don't know everything.

Now, that's not fair at all. I have taken a lot of time, and put forth a lot of effort to explain my position and articulate my argument as clearly as possible. I have supported my assertions with facts, and I have demonstrated a consistency in terms of applying objectivity and logic.

Not once have I shut you out. I have gone to great lengths to remain calm and friendly in my responses to you, since I do, in fact, see you as a friend... and I want to nourish that friendship in the long-term.

I have not shut you out. I have simply demonstrated where your position is weak, and provided counter arguments which show clearly which side of this issue is the better supported one.


Now... speaking of well supported arguments, can you make any in opposition to single payer health care which are not rooted in fear mongering, slippery slopes, and other logical fallacies? If not, I strongly encourage you to concede your position and consider exploring why I (and so many others) argue in favor of a single payer approach.


In the meantime, if you'd like to see how they make this work in other countries, this special from Frontline last year was really easy to follow, and brilliantly done. I encourage you to spend 50 minutes and watch it. It really helps to break down some of the preconceptions being bandied about regarding universal coverage.
Frontline Special: Sick Around the World

[InfiniteNow]

This guy breaks down the costs of our existing system pretty clearly.


The Burden of Private and Employer-Based Plans | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

I think it essential in discussing the plans proposed in Congress for Health Care Reform to have a grasp of the current situation, so that people have a broader base of knowledge when discussing the issue. Sure, the enemies of change can talk about “death panels, Nazi care, tort reform, being forced to pay for abortions” and all of the other aspects of a single-payer or public options that fit onto a hand-drawn sign, but without a recognition of the current situation they are in effect limiting themselves to a flawed interpretation of the issue.

<...>

Like I have been saying: If we stop looking at the “socialism” label, we can see how a government plan makes capitalism stronger and furthers our competitive edge.

Here, too:

What the climate campaign can tell us about health care (and vice versa)

The irrational, anti-intellectual, conspiracy-mongering response of climate change denialists and pseudoskeptics have long puzzled me. I just don't understand why so many people would choose to reject the expertise of those who have devoted their professional lives to the study of a subject that doesn't lend itself to armchair quarterbacking. Much has been written about the lack of respect for science in certain American circles in the past couple of years (Unscientific America by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby) and there's a long list of explanations. None of which do I find satisfying.

But the opposition to public health insurance makes even less sense to me. I've found my Canadian-raised self explaining to true blue Americans why a single-payer public system ends up costing a country less and produces superior results (longer lifespans, healthier citizens, fewer dead newborn and mothers, etc.). For some reason they just can't accept that private health insurance will always cost more because you have to add a profit margin to the bottom line.

"Why are you so attached to paying more and getting less?" I ask. You can almost see the logic circuits frying. I am reminded of the scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk and his crew shut down the evil androids by feeding them logically impossible statements (The episode is called "I, Mudd.")

It's not brain surgery. It's not rocket science. It's not even high-school math. It's axiomatic.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is another angle to the healthcare problem. Back say 50 years ago, males were more reluctant, than today, to use the health care system, beyond emergency care. It was expansive and the family came first. Working men would live in pain. If you were a male from one of the big wars, life at war was a huge risk. The risks of peace time were nothing. The idea was to cowboy up and don't be a wimp. If you can march 3 days in the mud and fight, don't panic if you sneeze.

The women back then were more likely to use the medical system. They were used to taking care of husband, children and home. At times, they occasionally needed to be taken care of. They would go to the doctor, who was a father figure, who would nurture them. Some would be regulars to get all the mother's little helpers, that came along. Mothers would also try to bring the children to the doctor, to be by the book of the cultural rules.

Since that past time, social changes like the break up of the family, and the increasing singular role of women rising children, took away the cowboy up influence of the males as head of household and family. The children had the more dominant female for examples which historically were the ones who most used the medical system. Eventually, the younger males started to cowboy down being a little more feminine and fragile.

Another effect that had an impact, during the same time, was the rise of atheism. A religious person would leave it in God's hands. Death was only a movement to another plane, etc. Whether this is true of not it used less resources. The atheist is more afraid and won't take any risk. They don't have anybody in heaven looking out for them and death, well, that is it. They need to walk on eggshells, requiring more resources.

Back 50 years ago, cowboy-up falls off the horse, gets hurt good, limps and gets back on the saddle. Later that night he is doctoring himself with a little whiskey and bacon fat. Cowboy down will call an ambulance, go to the EM for x-rays, wear a back brace, go to physical therapy, do pain killers, seek council for traumatic stress. This is tiny bit more expansive.

[Larv]

Why isn’t this elephant in the room not being seen for what it truly is? Seems odd to me that more is not being made about the amalgamation of the heath insurers’ lobby with the Republican Party to collectively defeat Obama’s big initiative. The health insurers want all that money that comes along with the status quo. And the Republicans want to see Obama go down in flames. It's the perfect blend of hate and greed, and they will probably succeed.

But that’s capitalism for ya. What true American would want any of those pinko commie health care systems like they have up in Canuckistan?

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Weekly Address: Myths and Morality in...

[Southtown]

Thank you for that PBS link. That was so good I watched it three times, and once with my wife. And I'm sorry for implying that you aren't contributing. My frustration comes from reading and watching all the news I can in search of details only to hear shallow characterizations of from each side to describe the arguments from the other.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Well, China proves your assertion wrong.

Yeah, I guess a country would need to have a closed economic system for my theory to stand a chance.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Yet another argument in favor of providing care to everyone so premiums are held relatively steady.

. . .

Southie... I'll be blunt. You don't want a free market health care system. To be blunt, nobody in our country would accept free market healthcare. We would never allow it, neither the religious whackjobs nor the atheist liberals. Nobody would let such a thing stand.

A free market healthcare system is one in which people who cannot afford to care for themselves are allowed to get sicker and die. Bodies would pile up in the streets, children would be orphaned, and our society would quickly resemble something out of the middle ages.

The populace in our country would NEVER for one moment allow a free market healthcare system, since such a system would allow the poor to die in large numbers, as the free market approach is one which caters to those who are privileged and can afford things.

Now that this has been established, it's time to wake up to the fact that free market principles do not apply to healthcare, and it's time for us as a community to come up with the most intelligent and logical alternative... All indicators suggest that most logical and intelligent alternative is a single payer system.

. . .

Now... speaking of well supported arguments, can you make any in opposition to single payer health care which are not rooted in fear mongering, slippery slopes, and other logical fallacies? If not, I strongly encourage you to concede your position and consider exploring why I (and so many others) argue in favor of a single payer approach.

I'm not arguing against care for everyone. And neither am I arguing for a purely free-market health system. I am not even arguing against expanding Medicare into a public option. I am however questioning the necessity of a single-payer system because it will neither inherently cover everyone nor keep costs down. Additional stipulations such as mandatory coverage, basic minimum benefits, rescission bans, and subsidities must be implimented in some form along side the single-payer mechanism. I say these stipulations can also be implimented along side a private heath care system/insurance industry. So it comes down to, in my opinion, not which is a better option, but how can these minor details be applied to varying degrees to make any medical system more effective? This is a quote I got from the end of that Frontline Special.

"What I've found is that it's not all socialized medicine out there. Many countries provide universal coverage with their private insurance, private doctors, private hospitals using market ideas that might work for us. But here's the thing, these capitalist countries don't trust healthcare entirely to the free market. They all impose limits. There are three big ones. First, insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Second, everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor. Third, doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices. Can Americans accept ideas like that? " -- T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Thank you for that PBS link. That was so good I watched it three times, and once with my wife.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was really eye-opening for me. I learned a lot in that short hour, and I'm happy to share educational experiences with my friends.

Originally Posted by Southtown

I'm not arguing against care for everyone. And neither am I arguing for a purely free-market health system. I am not even arguing against expanding Medicare into a public option. I am however questioning the necessity of a single-payer system because it will neither inherently cover everyone nor keep costs down. Additional stipulations such as mandatory coverage, basic minimum benefits, rescission bans, and subsidities must be implimented in some form along side the single-payer mechanism. I say these stipulations can also be implimented along side a private heath care system/insurance industry.

I understand your point, and I agree. Regardless of our approach, we need to ensure there are stipulations to mandate coverage, basic minimum benefits, bans on rescission and discrimination for those with preexisting conditions, and maximum payout limits for patients.

Originally Posted by Southtown

This is a quote I got from the end of that Frontline Special.

"What I've found is that it's not all socialized medicine out there. Many countries provide universal coverage with their private insurance, private doctors, private hospitals using market ideas that might work for us. But here's the thing, these capitalist countries don't trust healthcare entirely to the free market. They all impose limits. There are three big ones. First, insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Second, everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor. Third, doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices. Can Americans accept ideas like that? " -- T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World

Since you liked the "Sick Around the World" special so much, you might also enjoy the follow-up they did in March of this year called "Sick Around America."

FRONTLINE: sick around america: watch the full program | PBS


It provides some much needed perspective which we should each hold close and keep in the fore of our thoughts while having these academic discussions.