Concerning the "Patients United Now" Ad CampaignFollow

Then let's stop pretending that the goal from the Left here isn't to provide single-payer universal/socialized health care. That was the entirely of the point I was making.




Again. My point was to debunk the farcical counter argument that no one really intends to eliminate privately funded health care. Of course they do! They just lie about it to pass ridiculous half-measures, show that they don't work, then replace them with full socialized medicine. I just want people to be honest about the direction and ultimate agenda here instead of either lying about it, or naively buying the "But we're just providing a government alternative" argument.

At least you're being honest. Of course this is about eliminating private health care by making it impossible to compete with government provided health care. That is the entire objective here. Put the government in direct competition with private health care, and eliminate the private health care. Then, when that collapses, take the next step to a single payer system. I just want us to be honest about what's going on here so that we can debate the issue on the reality, and not some false rhetoric.

I never have, at least not in any sense that wasn't just a compromise. But if it was up to me, and I was trying to please everyone, just because I wouldn't want to be all fascist and stuff regardless of whether or not I'm right, I'd try to compromise and allow for some means of private insurance to exist.

As a one-sided ethical decision in a vacuum (like here, on the internet?) **** no. Privatization of medicine is deplorable, and solving that involves publication of both efficacy (insurance for all) as well as availability (exceptions for none.)

You're correct. Some insurance plans did include additional medical services, based on their customer base, the cost, and presumably a number of other economic factors. And, if the current system were the result of normal market forces, you'd have a point. But it isn't. With the introduction of the Medicare/medicade systems in the mid 60s, and the HMO Act of 1973, the government placed requirements on both sides of the financial equation.

While the providers themselves are "private", the customer base is more or less guaranteed. In a free market, both sides (seller and buyer) act as a check against each other. The seller must provide the correct combination of service and price to satisfy the needs and wallet of the buyer. The buyer must provide sufficient payment to make said combination profitable for the seller. When the government steps in and mandates that buyers must buy and puts requirements in place to control what the seller must sell, it's no longer a free market controlled industry. Predictably, the prices will rise and services will come to match political and not economic (or even medical) needs. Which is exactly what has happened.



Of course it's feasible. It just happens to eliminate some assumptions about health care which you've likely carried with your your entire life. No one owes you free health care and the more we try to change that truth the more we increase the total cost of the health care itself. Which in turn means that more people can't get it without government intervention. Gee... I wonder why anyone would cook this plan up?




No one owes you free health care. I know that you have been taught otherwise, which is why this seems so strange to you. If you can't pay, you don't get care. What about this is confusing? Remember, medical costs for basic things have increased dramatically as a result of the government regulated system. Eliminate that and anyone could afford such basic care out of pocket.

When doctors are not part of a huge health care system with government regulation, they can choose how much they charge to each patient. This gives them the freedom to charge some less than others based on ability to pay. If they're part of a larger health system, they have to account for every hour of their time, every tongue depressor, and every pill. They can't not charge everyone the same bloated cost. This is what has priced basic health care out of reach for most Americans. By trying to make health care more available to everyone, we've made it less available and more expensive.

That's how a truly free market health care system works. We haven't had one for probably your entire life, so you just don't know how it used to work.



Yes. So lets eliminate it. Or, at least the government controls on the system. Eliminate the rules which require employers to provide health care to employees. Let them choose to do so or not. Eliminate laws regulating the type of care which must be provided. Let the market decide what they provide and who buys it. When the government mandates what is sold and who must buy, why are we surprised when the result is bad for everyone?

Edited, Jul 28th 2009 3:59pm by gbaji

Back up on your pedestal again I see.

I don't think it's feasible because you have to start with the current system. How exactly would you stop insurance companies from including all these services? That's what I'm getting at. I think the problem is so big right now, that you need drastic measures.

I profoundly disagree with this statement. This isn't a fact, it's an opinion. I feel that everyone should have the ability to go to a doctor if they are sick. I feel that no one should be financially ruined by a medical crisis. The crisis itself might ruin your life, but not the financial costs. I feel then having this conviction that the only organization that can provide this is the government. This is in my opinion one of it's functions, if it's mandated by the people, which I think it is. I'm aware you disagree, but being condescending about it being strange and unusual is unnecessary. You approach life from a pedestal, you should really try to abandon it.

There are good arguments that are borne out historically about keeping your population healthy. I'm not going to address these. It is sufficient for me that people will need medical care, and I think they should get it. I think the fairest way of ensuring people have health care is to have it organized by the government, as that way everyone contributes.

Don't be silly - depletion of the middle class into crushing poverty and disease never has a negative impact on society as a whole. Examination of countries around the world with these problems proves the success of the model.

'Free Healthcare is a red herring.

You can all pay premiums or bills individually, allowing care providers with the opportunity to pick you off, or you can combine your buying power to take out a multi-million user policy.

That's how it works in the civilised world, and it's why you've been suckered into paying through the nose.

I heard an interesting suggestion the other day (on NPR, I'm sure though I don't remember). It was brought up that a public healthcare option should exist alongside private healthcare options, but that the private healthcare companies should be legally bound to be non-profit companies.

I'm not up on my non-profit information, but would that help things?

I'm certain the government has a vested interest in your tummy tuck. Obama will use that information to conquer the world, in fact.