How Massachusetts Voters Killed National Healthcare

I don't think a single person for reform has made the statement that health care is or should be or could be free or that it is an entitlement which we might be able to magically get if we ask the fairy godmother for.

We are under no such illusions.

Health care is Expensive. Everyone spends money on it.

Talking out my ass here, but I think it's a good estimate that on average, every family --if you extend the family unit to include cousins and the grandparents-- will spend the same amount on health care as every other family.

Oh yeah, except those people who have no insurance. They won't spend a dime (not actually true, but good enough for the sake of argument here). But the taxpayers do pay for them.

So, if we're all already spending the same amount on health care, what's the logical argument that supports not just having everyone pool all that money, plus all the tax money they pay to support the uninsured into a centralized, not-for-profit system that pays the bills for us and sets standard compensation rates for that care so no one takes advantage of the system? And if you get cancer that you want to treat in your own special way, hey! guess what, having such a centralized system doesn't spoil it for you. There will still be radical cutting edge procedures available outside the system that you pay for out of your own pocket. Or go ahead, buy some fancy supplemental insurance for that kind of thing.

Couple that with the economic benefit of having more healthy and well-adjusted people running around and it's a no-brainer to me.

How many times do I have to ask this: if you're against reform, why aren't you against free emergency care for the uninsured? Go ahead: say it. You'd rather they die than let them get away with using pooled resources the rest of us pay into. Oh, so that's not what you want? You support making sure ER care is available? Ok, let's go back to the top again.

 

Crap like this is why it is difficult for those of us who do not believe in "universal healthcare" or a "single payer" system to participate in a civil debate with you. Classic technique of "progressives"....don't have the facts on your side? Demonize and marginalize those with whom you disagree. Saul Alinski would be proud of you.

 

That statement is total nonsense. You watch too many Michael Moore movies.

 

The problem with this argument is that it presumes that a person who opposes Obamacare must take such a position to its logical extreme. The same can be said for someone who argues that if they support national health care reform, how can one logically argue against any restrictions to the type of health care to be provided? Obviously, the argument is not so black and white. I tend to view this issue, like many other issues, as not black and white but more of a continuum. For me, the logical extremes on both sides make little sense and instead each person must decide where they stand on that left/right continuum.

 

Wow, why not just go all the way and invoke Godwin's Law???

It's certainly possible to be against the current icky bill, while still having compassion for the poor. Everyone receives ER care because doctors are compassionate, and they believe in their oath. Folks who are helped out in the ER should work out a payment plan with the doctor if they can't afford to pay right away, and if someone's really truly poor, they're already eligible for Medicaid, and private charity is not out of the question either. But if you can work out a payment plan, you owe it to the good Dr. who helped you out, just like your boss owes you for the good work you do at your job.

The US government spends as much on health care as most other countries' health plans, about 8% of GDP. We concentrate that money into Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, and the VA. I'm open to ideas about how we take that 8% and spread it out to cover the rest of us, but I don't think folks will like the compromises in service that would mean.

 

Glad to see people finally attempting to answer my question. I guess I had to grab your attention.

But no one seems to get why I asked it.

If you are against reform, assuming you're rational, you must also be against the free health care we provide to the uninsured today because the status quo leads to fiscal calamity. Either we have to change the way we distribute free health care or we have to stop distributing it.

 

I think we can all agree that reform is needed. The disagreement is in the manner and extent of that reform. The big problem I have is that the second you come out against what is currently being proffered by Obama and the Democrat Congress you're instantly labeled as wanting poor people to die or a racist or worse. I chose not to participate in such debate when it gets to that level. I just wait for election day. The voters of Massachusetts did much the same. But, hey, what a surprise, those same voters have now been accused as haters and racists on such fine media outlets as CNN and MSNBC.

 

Seeing as how the only other party in this country with the power to do something didn't after being 8 years in power, and after having killed the previous attempt by the Democrats to do something, it's hard to blame the Democrats for thinking the Republicans aren't interested in reforming a single thing.

I favor reform for the sake of reform. Radical, I know. But I believe any reform whatsoever is better than no reform, even if it costs us more in the short term. I believe this because once we enact reform, we start down the path to figuring out the right reform. We apply pressure to the various interests involved to react to the reform and see what comes of it.

But as long as we bicker about it and do nothing, we get nowhere.

Now we have a leader whom we asked to lead. Most who put him there did so fully understanding he wanted to reform health care. So it makes sense to trust and follow the leader. If he ****s up, pick up the pieces afterward, get a new leader, try again. In my fraternity, we put enormous value on following elected leaders and letting them take the blame for bad outcomes, vs. second guessing leaders and not letting them lead, and no one makes any progress or learns anything.

Now with regard to what you consider accusations that you want people to die: logically, anyone who doesn't want the uninsured to receive ER treatment prefers they die over getting a free ride. Sounds harsh but it's true and getting offended by the truth is silly. I didn't say any of YOU don't want them to get treatment. I was only trying to corner you into picking a side: do you want them to get treatment or not? Once we can establish that, then, assuming most people do want them to get treatment, the reasonable thing to do is figure out what's the most cost effective way for the US to do that.

 

I'm going to censor myself, because I was about to violate Godwin's Law myself....let's just say that I'm not down with the whole "leader" thing.

 

Can we all agree to stop using the term "Obamacare"? It turns me from wanting to read your arguement, to wanting to slap you with a trout and/or Seabass. Nothing turns a valid arguement into an invalid one like trying to be clever with catch words.
Enjoy the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o

. Thanks

 

from wiki (good enough for me):

"Cuba has been a popular medical tourism destination for more than 40 years. Thousands of patients travel to Cuba, particularly from Latin America and Europe, attracted by the "fine reputation of Cuban doctors, the low prices and nearby beaches on which to recuperate."[54] In 2006, Cuba attracted nearly 20,000 health tourists.[55]
Medical treatments included joint replacement, cancer treatment, eye surgery, cosmetic surgery and addictions rehabilitation. Costs are about 60 to 80 percent less than US costs.
Cuba has hospitals for Cuban residents and others that focus on serving foreigners and diplomats. In the 2007 American documentary film, Sicko, which criticizes the US healthcare system, producer Michael Moore leads a group of uninsured American patients to Cuba to obtain more affordable medical treatment. Sicko has greatly increased foreigners' interest in Cuban healthcare. A recent Miami Herald story focused on the high quality of health care that Canadian and American medical tourism patients receive in Cuba.[56]
The Cuban government has developed Cuban medical tourism to generate income for the country. Residents of Canada, the UK and most other countries can travel to Cuba without any difficulty a tourist visa is generally required. For Americans, however, because of the US trade policy towards Cuba, travelers must either obtain US government approval, or, more frequently, travel to Cuba from Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, Jamaica or the Dominican Republic. Cuban immigration authorities do not stamp the passports of US visitors so that Americans can keep their travels a private matter.

A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue.[10]"

my ex was a p.t. in newport beach. it was extremely common for patients to go out of the country for procedures, often ones that weren't available in this country. they could travel and save money. win-win.

 

Enough with the misdirection. Let's touch on your Godwin's Law right here and now and see what we find.

If the Hitler had run on a platform of exterminating Jews, "hey everybody, vote for me and I promise to kill all the Jewish people..." then I hate to say it, but yes, it would make sense for them to follow their leader. It's evil, but the point of following a leader is to accomplish something you selected the leader to help you accomplish.

Now, if Hitler campaigned on a platform of peace and love, and then turned around and started his killing spree, then his constituents would be wise to abandon him.

So your analogy is flawed. But I think you knew that already and were just trying to toss around disarming rhetoric. As for your previous invocation of Godwin, I think I explained how that didn't apply either in my last post.

 

Says the incendiary one who calls Andrew Sullivan worse than Karl Marx

 

You're right. We should call it Pelosicare.

or

WeScrewedThePoochAndMissedOurWindowOfOpportunityCare.

 

honestly, i didn't even know that he did a bit about medical tourism to cuba in one of his movies until i started looking into the industry tonight. thanks for the heads-up!

and, evidently, the facts back me up (apology accepted).

:cheers:

 

Plonk.

 

don't forget about TANG. We ALL got to enjoy TANG in the 80's because of "science."

all kidding aside, I actually have kickass insurance because of the family plan through my wife's employer.

Talking to other folks, we get free stuff, stuff "written off", etc. that most others don't get. I enjoy the insurance, but I sure as hell don't think it's fair that we get these primo benefits while other people working just as hard (or harder) are subject to high premiums, high deductibles, getting dropped due to a condition (these are the people that NEED insurance, duh!), and so on.

The "survival of the fittest" mentality also seems to equate with "survival of the richest." My opinion is that health care shouldn't be subject to free market principles, but health care should also not be free.

You're already subsidizing everyone using the ER, people using medicare and medicaid, and the insurance companies. Why not reform this system into a basic fee for basic care for everyone? Assuming, of course, that if you are a rich bastard you will pay for "higher end" care.

There should be a "minimum care" level where people can at least get the care they need to stay alive.

Ask yourself- Why should I be entitled to better care than others? because of who I work for, or how much money I make?

Ask yourself- is it ok to just let people die if they can't pay for the (current) outrageous cost of health care? This reveals a lot about your character.

 

I'm just waiting t see how many pages we get out of it. Someone predicted 7. I say it will go up to 10.....

 

See also Americans taking trips to Mexico for prescription drugs, or ordering from other countries over the internet for cheaper prices.

(Edit: cool, I bumped it to 7 pages)

 

imho we are going about solving the whole health care PROBLEM all wrong. Instead of finding ways to reduce the cost of medical treatments and pharmaceuticals, we are trying to find ways to afford overpriced healtcare. The main issue at hand is healthcare is ridiculously expensive. As a result, coverage is so expensive that a lot of people cannot afford it. Until the healtcare industry stops viewing itself as a business that needs to maximize profits, we will continue to see the cost of coverage increase. Government run or privatized, it makes no difference.