|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corportations (7/22/2009 1:34:36 PM)
|
As much as I hate to say so, I really think that the issue has, once again, become one of special-interest pressures and politicizing instead of good leadership. Obama is pushing so hard to get -something- significant passed before his six-months-in-office deadline that he isn't paying attention to who is controlling what he's signing, and what the meat of it actually is, and that, frankly, sucks. I'd rather have it take a reasonable amount of time and have a plan that has actually been thought -through- than some slap-dash-oh-we-solved-healthcare garbage that funds more of what we already have and doesn't solve ANY of the real problems plaguing health care in this country.
I have no problem with having a private, single-payor system, or a public one. Unlike you, Merc, I don't think that there is any real benefit to a 'choice' when it comes to basic health care, hospitalization, prescriptions, mental health care, vision care, and dental care. Having a solid single-payor system, whether public or private, and funded by either a flat-percentage premium or through a specific, flat-percentage tax would, I think, provide the basics of decent coverage for every American citizen. Beyond that, I think people should have the -option- of additional, supplemental coverage that would, perhaps, provide some coverage for optional procedures like non-medically-indicated cosmetic surgery, transgender surgery, and other obscure and not-medically-critical procedures (Botox, anyone?), and this is a place where for-profit, free-market insurance systems would be perfectly acceptable.
The thing is, I don't know that there are too many of the existing 'for profit' insurance companies who would have any interest in underwriting a guaranteed-medical-loss situation like 'not-for-profit' universal health care. These companies have to answer to their shareholders, and the reality is that the shareholders want their dividends. A free-market, for-profit solution is not going to function under the constraints of a universal health system where the physician decides what is 'medically necessary' and treatment is provided and paid for without the ability to beat up the patient (at least financially) for having the NERVE to get sick. So without the for-profit insurance agencies' willingness to participate in this 'grand experiment', who would be both willing and -able- to maintain a hands-off, centralized, universal health care system of the caliber found in the rest of the industrial world? You can't leave it as a 'for profit' industry, because medical care is, inherently, a loss-based system. Even providing preventive care only -reduces- the amount of loss, it can't eliminate it (especially since providing preventive care -still- is a medical loss in insurance terms, because it has to be paid for instead of bringing money -in-).
Right now, the only group that I can see having the infrastructure, experience, and motivation to actually create -any- kind of working universal health care system in this country IS the government -- if hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, nursing homes, etc., are no longer profit-bearing institutions, how long do you think that they are going to continue operating unless some entity comes in and picks up the expensive white elephant?
Perhaps there will be some private foundations who will be able to cobble something together, but so far, I haven't seen -anyone- willing to do what needs to be done. All I've heard and seen thus far (including from the bills that are being considered in Congress) are people mollifying and agreeing to pad the pockets and offer more profit opportunities for the parasitic system that is already in place, and I'm sorry, but that just -doesn't- work.
So... if the government doesn't take on the task of universal health care, who will?
Dame Calla
|
|
|
|
