and they call us "Astro turfers"

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself.

But by all means, go ahead and let millions of people die because your corporate masters want to score cheap political points against the other side.

That's a tad grand, don't you think?

I've never hidden the fact that I support some sort of universal health care, but millions of people are not dying because of a corporate approach. In fact, corporations are the single largest payers of health insurance in this country, helping to provide private insurance to MILLIONS of Americans. Furthermore, all Americans HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE - they just get billed for it and it goes on their credit.

As a result, I'd like to suggest that we dispense with the Michael Moore dramatics and approach the issue reasonably. Personally, I believe that some measure of universal health care should happen. I believe there should be a government option for catastrophic care, and I believe it is possible to create an economic system that can deter the overuse that leads to rationed care, while still not making standard care inaccessible.

But what does our idiotic Congress do? They write bills that are beyond convoluted and seem to only marginally decrease the financial burden of the individual, while making absurd promises out of hand (such as, it's cost neutral, it won't help lead to the elimination of private insurance, etc.).

Ultimately, mookie, your side is failing because they are flat out lying. Sure, they have good intentions - but the average American isn't so stupid as the buy the BS they're selling (cost neutral? REALLY???). Furthermore, the average American understands that they are proposing a dramatic change in the nation's healthcare landscape, all the while they clearly either have no grasp on the full cause/effect factor of the bill, or they do and are lying about it.

This is the least trusted Congress in American history, and they want us to trust them to dramatically and convolutedly change the very nature of something that so many of us have little problem with. And, they want to ram it down our throats, right on the tail of a failed stimulus package that constituted the greatest amount of government spending in HISTORY. And they want us to trust the predictive powers of the White House and a president who told us that the stimulus must be rushed through and doing so would prevent unemployment from rising beyond 8%.

The fact is that, especially regarding healthcare, the White House and Congress have no idea what the hell they are doing. Americans, by and large, are aware of the fact that they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

And that, my friend, is why there's a stiff resistance.

And a "Town Hall Tips memo" does not equate to "millions of dollars spent whipping up the masses".

Ah.....That would be the $380 million spent then wouldn't it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Eloquently put, Aramike. I don't entirely agree with you; I wouldn't favor a government option for healthcare of any kind, but reading your post was one of life's simple joys. I swear, if someone as level-headed and well-spoken as you ever gets put into public office, I might regain some faith in our political system.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself.

But by all means, go ahead and let millions of people die because your corporate masters want to score cheap political points against the other side.

As much as I hate the idea, I have to jump on the mookie-bashing bandwagon now. In all fairness, mookie is one of the most intelligent liberals I have ever met. If there was ever a hope for liberalism to really take root in the educated public, mookie would be its' scion. Come to think of it, if people like mookie were in office, I might not have such a problem with liberalism.

Unfortunately, this post is an exception. Think for a moment, mookie. We are talking about profit-driven healthcare entities here. Moreover, we are talking about successful (as in....profitable) healthcare insurance providers. The whole freaking insurance industry is based upon risk assessment and analysis. What do you think their natural response to even semi-nationalization of the healthcare sytem is going to be? They aren't going to simply watch as the state cannibalizes their business, they're going to lobby like hell to get into the state healthcare program.

What you call "real" healthcare reform is simply an open invitation for plutocracy and purposeful incompetence. It is an invitation to state- enforced monopoly; the worst possible kind of monopoly.

Are you impressed by the lacklustre systems of socialized healthcare employed by other nations? Are you oblivious to the nigh-universal desireability of the US healthcare system? Do you really think that our heretofore incompetent legislative branch is going to put in place an effective system? Did our legislative system suddenly become motivated by something other than personal gain?

Damnit, mookie, you are smarter than that. Why on God's green earth would you wish to replace an imperfect industry with a fiat imperfect industry!? At least we have a choice in a privatized healthcare sytem.
And don't give me any of that crap about so-called "government option".
Private interests are naturally going to gravitate towards the govenment option. They're paying for it already, so why shouldn't they use it? It is more cost-effective.

What you don't seem to see is how this legislation is perverting the market. The state is going to wreck any semblance of truth in price and supply and demand that remains.

You wouldn't let the state make grocery decisions for you for obvious reasons, so why would you let it make healthcare decisions for you? The state does not play by the same rules as we do. It is, by all measures, a plutocratic entity. It must be guarded against and watched with vigilance.

The state is not a genie which will magically effect reforms upon society. It is an entity that is as self-interested as any person or corporation, and one should be very careful when seeking its' aid.

You wouldn't let the state make grocery decisions for you for obvious reasons,

The state does make grocery decisions for you.

[Tchocky]

Are you oblivious to the nigh-universal desireability of the US healthcare system?

I suppose since it costs the most it must be the best?

One would think that in a universally desirable system people would not be afraid to get sick. One would think that the main reason people go bankrupt would not be medical debt.

I don't believe that the healthcare system in the US is either the best or the worst in the world. The system in this country is fairly awful right now, but I don't know anyone who's going broke because of medical bills. You pay for hospital care if you don't have insurance, but the maximum you can pay in any one year is €750, regardless of treatment. And if you can't afford that, the government pays it. Friend of mine had a serious heart attack on Friday, two operations later and he's back at home doing fine. Not exactly a nightmare.
Other countries do it better than Ireland, though. Thinking of France/Netherlands.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The state does make grocery decisions for you.

Wow ... it just keeps getting better.

Maybe that explains why I can only get good cuban food in Miami.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

So whos 'manufacturing' things now?

China, South Korea, Japan, basically every country in the world except the US.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The state does make grocery decisions for you.

Yeah, to some extent, and I hate it. Don't even get me started on the FDA and/or agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, free choice is the rule rather than the exception in that area of the market. Private producers and retailers, vying for private dollars, have provided a bewildering array of food products at ever-lower prices. Our food market is so good that we actually have a problem with obesity, despite the fact that we sell and give away milions of tons of food to other nations every quarter. We also possess some of the largest and most profitable agricultural firms in the world. Companies like Con-Agra and General Mills literally set the global standard for food goods, and they do it without state direction.

The point I was making, however, was that no one of sound mind in this country would willingly let the state run grocery stores or make purchasing decisions for them. Well, maybe some would, but we'd have food shortages faster than you can say "breadlines".

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I suppose since it costs the most it must be the best?

Not at all. It's the best because the free market provides competitive incentive. Private healthcare in the US generally is the best in the world, which is why patients the world over flock to our shores for treatment.
Where it falls down and becomes extremely costly is wherever the state is involved. About 25% of our ridiculously huge federal budget is spent on medicare and medicaid, and those programs are bar-none the worst the US has to offer. Just ask people who use them. The AARP(American Association of Retired Persons) spends a good deal of its' time and money breaking down the doors of Congress to demand more money for medicare and medicaid because their constituents are not happy with how the system works now. They think that more funding is the answer, but it isn't.

Case-in-point: The US education system. 90-something percent of all pre-university US students attend public schools, and about half of them are inexcusably stupid. Many do not graduate high school. They can't spell, they can't read well, and they have a only a tenuous grasp of mathematics. I dare anyone here to champion the US education system, any takers?

We are known worldwide for being stupid, largely because of our state-run public education system. The US spends more per student than any other country in the world, and yet we lag behind many of those nations. Why do you suppose that is? Could it have something to do with the fact that taxpaying parents have to pay for public schools whether their child attends one or not? Is it because teachers' jobs are protected by unions? Could it maybe be associated with a lack of competition and lack of incentive that such a system breeds? Perhaps the government "option" for education has crowded out private competition by virtue of the fact that people pay for whether they want it or not and only have a finite amount of income Sounds a little like the proposed healthcare "reform", doesn't it?

One would think that in a universally desirable system people would not be afraid to get sick. One would think that the main reason people go bankrupt would not be medical debt.

Actually, we have the opposite problem. People here suffer mostly from hypochondriasis and jurosomatic illness. They get "sick" because the state provides a mechanism for them to profit from it. If you would like, we can discuss the ADA(Americans with Disabilites Act) and the implications of it.

I don't believe that the healthcare system in the US is either the best or the worst in the world. The system in this country is fairly awful right now, but I don't know anyone who's going broke because of medical bills. You pay for hospital care if you don't have insurance, but the maximum you can pay in any one year is €750, regardless of treatment. And if you can't afford that, the government pays it. Friend of mine had a serious heart attack on Friday, two operations later and he's back at home doing fine. Not exactly a nightmare.
Other countries do it better than Ireland, though. Thinking of France/Netherlands.

I won't pretend to know the dynamics of your healthcare system, but your apparent dissatisfaction with it would lead me to suggest that it might benefit from a little healthy competition.

Speaking of competition; if there is one area where Europe has the US beat, it is in the arena of politics. Europe has many political parties and nations competing for their individual interests. The US does not. That is why government works in Europe(not really well, though) where it fails in the US. We only have two parties, and they might as well just be one party. If it weren't for constitutional limits on state power our state would have failed long ago, and even those are steadily being overcome. The incentive provided by competition is a key factor in the performance of any societal system.

Competition makes things better, cheaper, and faster. That is the very essence of it. It is also the definition of social equality. Let those who risk capital reap the rewards and punishments for their actions. If they risk more, should they not stand to gain or lose more? Competition is the mechanism by which you build any successful society. Fiat monopoly is the means by which you destroy the same.

Lassiez-faire,

James

Our food market is so good that we actually have a problem with obesity

Could that be down to the state making grocery decisions for you?
Like allowing some rather nice growth promoters to become part of your food intake in your regulated grocery business?
Or maybe the policy of trying to rig the sugar market for political purposes plus bending to the corn lobby resulting in a bloody high usage of HFCS which just happens to cause obesity

[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.

[Blood_splat]

[CaptainHaplo]

Funny, I haven't seen ANY health care company come out against health care reform. What I HAVE seen, is individuals who take the time to read, say 'Absolutely Not!" to the CURRENT reform proposals.

What is disturbing is that many of the liberals involved in crafting the various proposals - ADMIT they have no idea what the proposals actually say, and have refused to read them.

So what we have here is this. People that don't read the proposals, are all for them. The people that know what is contained in the various legislative bills, are deadset against it.

Why is it that it must be a immediate, total change in the system? Case in point - President Obama says there are BILLIONS wasted in Medicare every year, and he is going to keep from cutting benefits to our older citizens by cutting that waste to help fund the other initiatives. Here is an idea - reform MEDICARE so you don't waste Billions - show the American people that you can be good stewards of a health care related program - show us that you can create an efficient, government overseen medical program, and THEN start discussing how to use that same success to make health care better for even more people.

But the government takeover of health care can't wait - because its more about a power grab than it is looking out for the American People.

Funny, I haven't seen ANY health care company come out against health care reform.

Is that because you havn't looked?

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Here is an idea - reform MEDICARE so you don't waste Billions - show the American people that you can be good stewards of a health care related program - show us that you can create an efficient, government overseen medical program, and THEN start discussing how to use that same success to make health care better for even more people.

But the government takeover of health care can't wait - because its more about a power grab than it is looking out for the American People.

This ^

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman - try putting some fact out to make the point. Don't try to repeat mookie's though - because while it was a valient attempt - the links referenced individuals who WORK in health care (they have a right to be heard just like anyone else) and an ASSOCIATION - not a specific company. Also note that they SUPPORT reform - just not THIS one. (Or did that mere fact not fit your preconcieved evil corporation viewpoint and thus was ignored?) Show me where Blue Cross Blue Shield for example is putting out commercials about how health care reform is a horrible Idea. Oh wait - you cant. They actually have run some here where they support it - with some major changes. Yet groups like the AARP (who know nothing ABOUT insurance) can sure put out flat out LIES about what is being proposed and no one raises an eyebrow.

Sorry - but double standards and accusation without fact just don't weigh heavy on my mind.