and they call us "Astro turfers"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Thanks, Undersea. Trust me, I do understand your reasoning behind preferring a 100% private system, as in a perfect world, I'd agree. The reasons I've decided to be a proponent of some degree of universal coverage is dominated by the fact that we already have a system which unfairly taxes everyone who's actually insured/pays their own medical bills.

The fact is that costs are higher due to adverse government involvement including the Patient Bill of Rights which leads to patient delinquency, lack of an effort to regulate tort, and the astronomical costs associated with dealing with government programs and insurance companies.

The problem arises is that we have a populace that is in no way interested in abandoning the Patient Bill of Rights (not that I think we should) and a government in the pockets of the trial lawyers, who have no interest in limiting damages. Furthermore, insurance companies are really the only act in town, and are able to further manipulate the industry by attempting to deny coverage of people who are likely to require expensive treatments, thereby increasing the cost of delinquencies passed along to the consumer, and moreso to the taxpayer.

Now, I have no problem with a company making a buck, not at all. I DO, however, have a problem with a company profiting off of a market that they directly manipulate - in other words, making money just because they said so.

Right now the economics of healthcare in this country is a cluster. We actually have one of the best infrastructures in the world as far as direct care is concerned. However, regulations that most people agree with have removed some of the capitalistic factors from the equations meaning that costs will continue to rise proportionate to the built-in demands for free service. For example, the underpriviliged are filling up hospital emergency departments (some of the most expensive care you can find) for head colds, knowing that they'll never have to pay a dime. The rest of us foot that bill.

So our choices really are as follows.

1: Purely capitalist. Deny care to those who are uninsured and can't pay.
2: Defacto, hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as we have today).
3: Bureaucratic, government run hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as much of the rest of the world).
4: Steamlined, efficient government regulated universal coverage.

Yeah, I know that "streamlined", "efficient", and "government" doesn't go well together traditionally - but I don't think that it's impossible. I think that, with a combined private/public effort, a balance could be achieved. For example, require insurance companies to cover EVERYONE at a certain rate. But, the government can insure that coverage for financially catastrophic cases. Furthermore, require the insurance to be simple and complete. And, benchmark efficiency in costs.

Just a thought.

I had a very well thought-out response to this, replete with an asessment of price controls, but my browser decided to stop working.
Here's the jist of it; price controls= bad, they generate shortages and surpluses, so says some notable economists. The US does not have a healthcare shortage, it has a surplus, and there are more effective ways than state healthcare reform to make it more widely available and more resonably priced.

I'll re-type it all when I have some spare time and will.

Edit- almost forgot, I was going to bash tribesman's last post as well. If someone could do it for me and save me some time, I'd be most obliged.