|
Mercnbeth -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/22/2009 2:57:12 PM)
|
quote:
In other countries, government is quite competent to run health care, and does so routinely.....US right wing propaganda
Talk about "blinders" - what will it take for you to appreciate the reality that the US is NOT like any other countries. Whosoever "wing" represents it, it is accurate to state that the US has different laws, civil and criminal, that make comparison impossible as well as irrelevant.
quote:
then why not disband the US military and contract out the work? Why bother with a diplomatic corps, why not just contract it out? If government never makes a positive difference, why not rewrite the constitution and phase it out? Why not privatize the courts? Defending the sovereignty of the Country IS required by the Constitution, as are treaties and commerce with other nations. It also serves to enforce and protect the Constitution through its court system. Grasping at straws to try and make an argument out of them isn't an indication of a powerful position. The discussion is about government industry, setting up a bureaucracy, and eliminating choice; none of these activities are remotely similar to defending the nation's borders, making court rulings, or establishing diplomatic policy and treaties. However, if you want to discuss any of those, especially the ongoing use of US military in Afghanistan or Iraq, most likely I'll be on your side and against that waste of personnel, and economic resources. However - since you brought it up - weren't we promised the the US would be out of Iraq by June? Can we trust the integrity of this Administration when that fundamental campaign promise was broken and the final date of Iraq departure is unknown and indefinite? Again - just addressing the tangent you raised.
Curious though - Why the need to distract with this weak approach to the debate if your argument is so strong? Why not provide a valid argument as to why we should expect a newly formed US-Health Co. result different than the current Social Security result?
Oh and BTW - Government involvement should be limited to regulatory status and review. Government involvement or takeover of ANY industry is Fascism. So you won't misrepresent me, I do not think there should be no government or no government involvement. My belief is that there should be as little involvement as possible, it isn't effective, isn't efficient, and never accomplishes any goal because doing so is counter productive to the bureaucrats who would be out of a job if they did.
quote:
The US health care system, in private hands, has failed....... It has? Where? Which one does not offer coverage? Again - you need to understand and become aware of reality before trying to speak on the subject.
People have failed by not planning or using access to insurance when available; there are bad consequences for that, no doubt. Current government programs set up to help people who can't pay, or won't pay and incur health costs have failed; again, pointing to a disjointed expectation when putting more administration and implementation responsibility on them. You'll never be able to convert anyone if fundamentally your facts are wrong, or in opposition to the observable world.
quote:
These ideas, though they may have some limited utility, simply wont solve the problem. As you've pointed out, the only entity in a position to solve the problem is government. Why? What evidence do you have to support your claim? The one entity currently operating in the US created to "solve" the problem with supporting people in their old age is Social Security. How's that working? What basis do you support that the government solution in this instance will work any better? Perhaps it is your ideology that needs a review. The government does serve a purpose, by serving - not dictating.
quote:
The thing is, the insurance companies, for-profit hospitals, HMOs etc, are only going to want to stay on board as long as they can KEEP making a profit -- and universal health care is a -guaranteed loss- proposition... so if the government -doesn't- pick this up and run with it when there is -clearly- no profit in it (if it's truly done for the benefit of the population), who will? Universal health care does NOT have to be a "guaranteed loss"; and I'd debate it is a loss at all. It's a loss in niches, the real old, the real sick, and the real litigation seekers.
Eliminate the litigants and require the establishment of an 'assigned risk' pool for the uninsured at participation levels equal to their voluntary markets and you solve the issue. First time treated you are 'assigned' an insurance company. It stays with you until you die, or get a job where health care is offered. No new 'Czar' or bureaucracy.
Except of course, the PACs, from the ambulance chasers to the insurance company lobbyists, paying off the politicians would be pissed as such as pragmatic solution and the bureaucrats wouldn't have a new job source for their friends and relatives. If 100% of the people were insured, the cost for me would go down. You can create those incentives without putting a new bureaucracy in place with unlimited funds run by a inefficient government.
To see the resignation and defeatism assigned to every source of solution other than the government points to a much bigger problem than health care. I thought the idea was to elect a change that came from thinking outside the box? Where's that occurring? More of the same is bad enough. More of the same with historical evidence pointing to failure and thinking it is somehow a good idea must be the result of brain washing or something.
|
|
|
|
