Support for national health insurance

[Rob_Mayes]

It was reported today on CNN that 51 percent of polled physicians support a national health care plan. That is really an about face. Given the many large companies want to move the health care expense to the government, the democratic candidates and most of the populace want more accessable nationalized health care, we may just have some form of National health care soon. Only the insurance lobby will probably oppose it.

[smiller]

Only the insurance lobby will probably oppose it.

You haven't been around here very long, have you?

[hANNAbONE]

oH bOY....

[Dave McReynolds]

If the insurance industry is smart, they will try to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. The insurance industry has much more experience than the federal government in controlling health-care costs, and would no doubt more than pay for their costs on a contract basis in assisting the administration of a federal program.

 

What has held the insurance industry back in the past is that they can't make laws, so they have to deal with the legal liability system and patient care requirements as they exist. My hope is that adding the federal government to the equation could lead to some additional cost savings that aren't possible otherwise, in the areas of malpractice costs, testing requirements, control of prescription medicine costs, and ultimately (which nobody likes but needs to be addressed) determinations of who gets access to what level of medical care for what conditions.

[Aluminum_Butt]

...51 percent of polled physicians...Only the insurance lobby will probably oppose it.

 

And the other 49% of physicians. And me.

 

 

[Rob_Mayes]

I have no personal interest as I have full coverage through a goverment sponsered retirement health care plan. But I have have many friends with a precondition in their 50's and basically are now uninsurable. Back injury, any cancers, diabetes, etc will leave one uninsured until medicare kicks in at 65 years.

[Rob_Mayes]

No,actually it was about 29% opposted it, the rest had no expressed opinion.

[smkymtntaco]

The cost of health care is really high...but wait till it's free. Then you'll really see how high it is.

[Matts_12GS]

The cost of health care is really high...but wait till it's free. Then you'll really see how high it is.

 

From each... to each...

[Bud]

<snip> My hope is that adding the federal government to the equation could lead to some additional cost savings that aren't possible otherwise, in the areas of malpractice costs, testing requirements, control of prescription medicine costs, <snip>

 

I would wish that as well but the last go round, the law was written, with help from the drug lobby, to PROHIBIT the government from trying to get better drug prices.

 

Hardly gives me any confidence that it would change in the future.

 

It always goes back to the money doesn't it. Unfortunately, congress can be bought for relatively small amounts.

[smiller]

I would wish that as well but the last go round, the law was written, with help from the drug lobby, to PROHIBIT the government from trying to get better drug prices.

 

Hardly gives me any confidence that it would change in the future.

There will be different actors this time around. Both of the health plans proposed thus far include provisions to rescind that particular giveaway.

[Ken H.]

It will never happen. There's too much money to be made by keeping a steady supply of sick people in the pipe. A national health care system might actually result in a healthier populous, which might impact profits, which is a mortal sin in this country. Profits before people you know...

[Gregori]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

[DiggerJim]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

Ummm...Public Education?

 

Gawd I love April 1

[steve.foote]

...51 percent of polled physicians support a national health care plan.

 

 

I love this, "51 percent of polled physicians." It's all in the wording, folks.

 

Four out of five dentists recommend...

 

I've been known to be right 100% of the time in many cases...

[beemerman2k]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

 

I am not interested in starting a political debate, but I would argue the case for the American military. I am totally opposed to our involvement in Iraq, yet I have to admit that I do take pride in the efforts our country takes in restoring that nation to it's once self-sufficient status. Please don't debate my observations as that is not the purpose of this thread, but if we really wanted to be a selfish, "profit" oriented nation, then we'd trash that country and leave it for dead. Instead, we are very much interested in seeing that nation restored to a position of self sufficiency. You may not agree with how we're attempting to do so, but that's another topic.

 

There are some things that government does better than the private sector mainly because government is not obligated to produce a monetary profit, only a strategic one. The role of government is to represent it's citizens, and that's not the role of private corporations. When American citizens can have their needs met -- ideally through labor, but if necessary through government legislation -- then our country gains a "strategic profit".

 

I am tired of seeing our citizens go without when it comes to health care. It's time we spend some of those billions on our own US citizens if you ask me. What do we have to lose versus what do we have to gain?

[Bheckel169]

I hope free dental is included in the universal health plan. I want my teeth to have the same luster and minty fresh look as the British teeth have!

[Matts_12GS]

I've been known to be right 100% of the time in many cases...

 

Even a blind squirrel finds and acorn now and again....

[Joel]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

 

That was one point I was hoping to make.

 

The other point is whether the poll or the respondents distinguish "national health care plan" from "universal coverage." The former tends to make me see Mr. Marx too; the latter could leave room for private sector solutions.

 

Let those whose retirement funds have no ties whatsoever to investments in health insurers (including via mutual funds) cast the first stones.

[dewtwo]

It was reported today on CNN that 51 percent of polled physicians support a national health care plan. That is really an about face. Given the many large companies want to move the health care expense to the government, the democratic candidates and most of the populace want more accessable nationalized health care, we may just have some form of National health care soon. Only the insurance lobby will probably oppose it.

 

 

I think this is awwweeesssooommmmmeee!

 

The great thing about socialized medicine is the government gets to decide who dies and who lives. Government can't afford to cure everyone, so they (history shows no doctors will be allowed to express their opinion) will eventually publish a list of diseases which will be cured and which will not. Oh, and the other great part is if you need a relatively routine test, say MRI, you will probably only have to wait 3 to 6 months to get it.

 

Don't worry about those nasty rich and the politicians, they will be flying to private clinics in the Carribean for their treatments on our dime.

 

Yeah!

[Mike]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

 

Here's one for you: Google "Wackenhut prison abuse" and you'll see that there are some areas traditionally left to the government where the profit motive can have disastrous results.

 

I'm not in favor of the broad-ranging public healthcare programs proposed by some, but the notion that government can't work more effectively and economically than the private sector is just flat wrong. It's a weak argument. Try harder . . . I know you can do better than that.

[Pilgrim]

It will never happen. There's too much money to be made by keeping a steady supply of sick people in the pipe. A national health care system might actually result in a healthier populous, which might impact profits, which is a mortal sin in this country. Profits before people you know...

 

Even more likely is that it will remove good care from anyone's reach. As socialist dogma calls for, nobody gets to have anything better than anyone else, even if it takes law to make it so.

 

Pilgrim

[Bheckel169]

Mike,

Your argument is specious at best. If a private sector operator mismanages a program, the contract is not renewed. If the government mismanages, well........

[smiller]

Even more likely is that it will remove good care from anyone's reach. As socialist dogma calls for, nobody gets to have anything better than anyone else, even if it takes law to make it so.

What in any of the currently-proposed health care plans calls for that?

[Matts_12GS]

Even more likely is that it will remove good care from anyone's reach. As socialist dogma calls for, nobody gets to have anything better than anyone else, even if it takes law to make it so.

What in any of the currently-proposed health care plans calls for that?

 

A single payer in the form of the government?

[smiller]

Neither of the proposed plans are single payer, neither prevent you from obtaining any care you desire, and in fact both retain much of the current infrastructure. Hardly the gulag many like to present.

 

Methinks that socialist dogma is not the only dogma at work here.

[Couchrocket]

Ummm...Public Education?

 

 

Public toilets.

[Matts_12GS]

Well, perhaps....

 

I only know for sure what I've seen of a specific candidate's proposal, she that's been enduring a lot of sniper fire lately...

 

 

 

Oh, and 10 years in the insurance industry...

 

Single payer is coming, and the consumer ain't the payer. Which is great if you're desiring to live off the government. Not so much if you want to control your own health care decisions.

 

Government regulated health care sucks, at least that was my experiences when I worked for them. But again, that was only 10 years of dealing with it...

 

 

 

 

And thousands of private sector dollars spent recovering from it when I left that system.

[doc47]

What does the gov do that would be better served by industry?

 

Good question. How about privatizing congress? Surely a for-profit outfit would make more economical and efficient decisions.

 

Let's see......ah, we've got Blackwater! Pay them to take over the entire military operation in Iraq. Surely they'll do better, right? They could even eliminate ineffecient things like Rules of Engagement.

 

I'm all for it. God bless the private sector. Enron, Bear Stearns and the S&L mess.....uh.....Teapot Dome.....uh....JP Morgan selling defective rifles to the Union army.....hmmmm.....

 

 

 

By the way, Matt, where'd you get that portrait of my rabbi?

[Matts_12GS]

By the way, Matt, where'd you get that portrait of my rabbi?

 

oFF THE interWebs Dok...

 

Seems like you'd rather have the post office and IRS running things. Oh well, I figured this would just turn into another gun thread!

[bmwdude]

I fear that America(ns) will have to taste socialized medicine or nationalized healthcare or whatever you want to call it....will have to taste it before it is realized how bad tasting it really can be. Government is not a very effective delivery system of most services, including government education, oh, excuse me, public education. I, too, sympathize with those who cannot afford to get adequate health insurance but this unfortunate deficiency doesn't necessitate government getting involved to solve this problem in this manner. If government is going to take care of all of our needs then what will we need to do...just sit home and watch Jerry and eat pizza? Give me a break! When something is free it is not generally valued.

 

I vote "no."

[RichEdwards]

In a country known for its generosity, many in the U.S. are totally selfish when it comes to health care. "I want it available to ME and screw everyone else."

If we ran our road system the way we run our health care system, there would be huge tolls to travel the highways. Good employers would pay the tolls for their workers. Wealthy drivers would be able to pay their own tolls. And a half of us would be unable to travel at all. But there would be no traffic delays.

[hANNAbONE]

????wHAT do you call the guy that graduated last in his medical practice classes.....???????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'D O C T O R'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bheckel169]

"God bless the private sector. Enron, Bear Stearns and the S&L mess.....uh.....Teapot Dome.....uh....JP Morgan selling defective rifles to the Union army.....hmmmm....."

 

Great! Mention 5 or 6 historical cases over decades where private sector abuse takes place and we have a solid argument why capitalism doesn't work. Let's see, shall we discuss government abuses over the same period? Seems to me those problems took care of themselves or were prosecuted or they simply went away. The government never goes away and they never want less power...only more.

[Ken H.]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

There's a whole bunch of things - Education, streets & highways, water & sewer infrastructure, in some areas gas & electric too, law enforcement, the military, holding elections, building codes enforcement, local governments, health & safety regulations, the list goes on...

[Mike]

"God bless the private sector. Enron, Bear Stearns and the S&L mess.....uh.....Teapot Dome.....uh....JP Morgan selling defective rifles to the Union army.....hmmmm....."

 

Great! Mention 5 or 6 historical cases over decades where private sector abuse takes place and we have a solid argument why capitalism doesn't work. Let's see, shall we discuss government abuses over the same period? Seems to me those problems took care of themselves or were prosecuted or they simply went away. The government never goes away and they never want less power...only more.

 

Responding to this and your previous post, I think you miscomprehended my point, which was in response to Gregori's suggestion that the private sector is better at all endeavors. I don't think it's as simple as that. As you note, there are ample examples of incompetence and dishonesty in both the private and public sector. To suggest that either a private or public sector solution is inherently wrong based on past misadventures is too shallow an analysis. You have to look beyond that, and determine whether the balance of positive and negative points for or against public sector involvement is the right answer.

 

I am most assuredly not in the camp that believes a comprehensive government-operated healthcare system is necessarily the right answer, but I have to admit that I'm among the fortunate who has darned good healthcare benefits through my job.

 

However, if you're going to look back in history to determine whether public or private sector healthcare is preferable, there is plenty of history on the topic to examine. In the U.S. the healthcare system is dominated by the private sector, and there are some very clear indications that that approach is not working for a very large percentage of Americans.

[Bheckel169]

"There's a whole bunch of things - Education, streets & highways, water & sewer infrastructure, in some areas gas & electric too, law enforcement, the military, holding elections, building codes enforcement, local governments, health & safety regulations, the list goes on..."

 

 

[steve.foote]

In a country known for its generosity, many in the U.S. are totally selfish when it comes to health care. "I want it available to ME and screw everyone else."

If we ran our road system the way we run our health care system, there would be huge tolls to travel the highways. Good employers would pay the tolls for their workers. Wealthy drivers would be able to pay their own tolls. And a half of us would be unable to travel at all. But there would be no traffic delays.

 

Alright, Rich, let's take this to the absurd. I think we can all agree that to some extent, we have a parenting problem in this country. Using the nationalized healthcare arguement of nobody left behind, wouldn't it also make sense to nationalize parenting? After all, we could only be considered a generous nation if ALL of our children are being raised in a nurturing environment, right?

 

We could set up huge government run centers full of qualified public servants who would raise ALL of our children from birth to adulthood. Of course, we would have to have a vigorous dibate about whether biological parents would be allowed to visit their children. Sure, it would cost a bundle and we would lose the character which makes this country so wonderful, but that would be worth it because no child would be left behind.

[Whip]

Somebody please show me a program (in the US) where the government does a better job than the private sector entity it competes with or replaced?

(Better being defined as more economical, and more efficient.)

There's a whole bunch of things - Education, streets & highways, water & sewer infrastructure, in some areas gas & electric too, law enforcement, the military, holding elections, building codes enforcement, local governments, health & safety regulations, the list goes on...

 

....Ken they may do em, but every time a private company takes over they do it better and cheaper.

 

I can't think of a single case you mention where the government does them better.(unless you add in the Military)

 

BTW...I don't think regulating counts for anything.

 

As far has National Health Insurance goes it doesn't have a chance till they can convince everyone that has it now through their employer that what they will get from the government will be at least as good. AFL-CIA, UAW, NEA, they will never support less than what they already have. They send more money to Washington than all the Insurance Lobbyist together. It won't happen. Somethin will be done, it will cost ten times more than any one thought and it will prolly do more harm than good. But it will get votes, cause the press wants it to.

 

For the record, I pay my own insurance and it is very expensive. It would be better for me if we had National Health Care. I just don't think anyone that has it now(through their employer) will be better off with whatever the idiots in Washington come up with.

 

 

Long live Halliburton.

 

 

 

[Bheckel169]

Mike,

I would agree with you on some points however, I also think statistics can be very misleading. There are a number of camps that suggest the actual number of medically uninsured is closer to 12 to 15 million, not the 43 million thrown out by many in the media as well as those whose agenda supports some kind of universal healthcare.

Many people, including young families and the self employed, are self insured. That is, they believe that healthcare should be used for a catastrophic occurance and either choose to select no insurance and pay for the rare occasional visit out of their own pocket or they shop healthcare insurance and have periods of no coverage so are not included in the metrics. As a former self employed owner of a small business, I chose to not have insurance when my family was young and were basically healthy. I did provide health insurance for my employees too and found that they took advantage of the insurance by visiting the doctor much more frequently when they or their children had the sniffles or a stubbed toe. I had frequent absenteeism due to their use (or abuse) of the system. There's a different mindset about healthcare with those of us who were self employed. It's sort of like car insurance. You can chose the level of coverage you want. I hope this obsession with universal health coverage doesn't mean that the government will eventually take care of our car insurance and motorcycle insurance too because everybody needs to be protected. On the other hand, maybe motorcycle insurance isn't such a bad idea.

[keithb]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your comments Whip, RightSpin, Bheckel169, Mike, and BMWDUDE on this potential national healthcare debacle. Just ask France, England, and Canada how they like their national healthcare system. THE ONES THAT CAN AFFORD IT ARE COMING TO THE U.S. TO BE TREATED.

[smkymtntaco]

" A government large enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

 

---Thomas Jefferson

[smiller]

If might be more productive if persons involved in this discussion would actually read the current proposals and address them specifically rather than providing only vague ideological objections. None of the three plans proposed by McCain, Obama, or Clinton restrict choice or significantly change the way health care providers themselves operate. Private insurers will still provide the lion's share of coverage and in fact none of plans represent any kind of radical change.

 

They do represent some changes of course. Insurers will have to create pool coverage for the current 'uninsurable' population so that no one will be denied affordable coverage based on preexisting conditions, and in some plans your insurance coverage will no longer be linked to/controlled by your employer (something that even many of the currently-insured would like to see.)

 

I don't know if the government will do a perfect job of execution, probably not, and if you think the system that exists now represents perfection then you probably don't want to see a change. But I don't think that you have to be a pinko commie liberal in order to feel that there are significant opportunities for improvement in the current US healthcare system.

[marcopolo]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your comments Whip, RightSpin, Bheckel169, Mike, and BMWDUDE on this potential national healthcare debacle. Just ask France, England, and Canada how they like their national healthcare system. THE ONES THAT CAN AFFORD IT ARE COMING TO THE U.S. TO BE TREATED.

 

Actually, I like the Canadian system very much, but I'd never try to convince you what to do. I imagine there are a lot of myths spun by both sides of this debate in your country, and a lot of fear-mongering. I don't know anyone in my family, or circle of friends, who would give up our health care system, despite its failings (and we're well aware of them). For me, sone of the biggest benefits are that everyone is covered; that you don't have to worry about a catastrphic condition making you uninsurable; and that health care in retirement is not a worry. I don't know about the UK and France, but I believe the great majority of Canadians would take our current system, warts and all, over the alternative.

[Boffin]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your comments Whip, RightSpin, Bheckel169, Mike, and BMWDUDE on this potential national healthcare debacle. Just ask France, England, and Canada how they like their national healthcare system. THE ONES THAT CAN AFFORD IT ARE COMING TO THE U.S. TO BE TREATED.

 

I love ours. I do not need to fear any illness as I know I will receive treatment at no cost - or for dental treatment at a capped cost. When I my audiologist wanted a diagnostic MRI I had to wait 10 days, not bad for a non-urgent test. There was a slight delay whilst an urgent case was slotted in.

A few months back when I had an infected cat bite I was admitted to hospital half an hour after seeing my GP, and operated on the next morning. My week-long hospital stay with three operations under general anethesetic cost me not one penny at the point of delivery.

 

I now have an employer-provided health insurance scheme in addition to that national scheme. The only difference is that for non-urgent care I will get faster treatment.

 

Andy

[Bheckel169]

Smiller,

 

No one's suggesting that you're a pinko commie. I'm color blind. I have given the candidate's healthcare proposals a look and would agree that it is not the healtcare system representative of many socialist countries. However, my concern is this slippery slope some see as a benign step, is much more then it appears. I never look at government involvement as benign nor as altruistic as some might suggest. I see it as the foot in the door for larger more intrusive involvement later. Much has been written about Hillary's farsical healthcare proposal and the consensus from that episode is that the American people were not ready for the giant leap required to get them there. A number of policy wonks in favor of universal healthcare have indicated that in order to get there, it must be done in increments to be more palatable for American's to swallow. It seems the candidates on the left, including Hillary, have taken this approach to heart.

[smiller]

Just ask France, England, and Canada how they like their national healthcare system.

I think you're about to find out, and it may not be in line with your expectations.

 

No doubt that the citizens of France, England, and Canada all exhibit the occasional grouse about some aspect of their healthcare systems, but... I kind of doubt that very many of these would want to toss out their current system and adopt what we have in the US.

[Gregori]

What? Is this thread still going??

 

I thought it was an April fool's gag?

 

[steve.foote]

But I don't think that you have to be a pinko commie liberal in order to feel that there are significant opportunities for improvement in the current US healthcare system.

 

Your words. And, while I don't necessarily disagree with you that the system could use some reforming, I completely disagree with you that more government and regulation is the answer.

 

I favor a complete decentralization of our current mostly employer paid insurance scheme. Turn consumers loose on the market and let competition drive the prices. We don't seem to have a crisis in life insurance, or auto insurance.

[keithb]

Andy, Mark

I am glad to hear the system works for you. It is not quite the spin we hear over here and I realize there is spin to all topics. Especially where the government is concerned. I am curious to know what the tax rate is on wages in England and Canada