Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

[barbara L]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

I'm a supervisor at the welfare office have denied a child with a brain tumer and adults with critical and terminal illnesses medi-cal benefits because they or their parents were lucky enough to work all their lives and put something aside for themselves.

Everyday I here my co-workers coaching customers on how to make themselves eligible to services. I have seen my co-workers cry because there was nothing they could do and knowing that a person would not be put on an organ transplant list because they were not medi-cal eligible is the same as sentencing that customer to death.

I am a firm believer in universal health care. Every person should be able to be seen by a doctor without worrying whether or not they will be able to eat or pay a bill or become homeless because of outrageous health care costs.

Than there is the fact that if you are lucky enough to be able to afford private insurance, there is a disclosure that you can be terminated at the will of the insurer, blah, blah, blah...

I don't think it is just the republicans that have screwed things up either. Nor do I think it is all the democrats fault that there is a welfare system.

I don't know what the answer is. I am a firm believer in writing letters. What do you think the president would do if he got 11 million letters to him regarding the current state of the health care system? He might take notice that there is a problem. Right now it is probably not even in the top ten of his concerns.

[jmjj215]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Simple. The more we spend on foreign military initiatives, the less we have to spend on humanitary programs, including domestic health care.

Sure, that's simple. But that - to me - is analagous to not eating food so I can heat my house (or the other way around). I just see them both as very important.

[jmjj215]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

If we had some real accounting, that money would go a lot farther. There was even a story that a large sum of money (I can't remember the exact amount but I believe it was in the millions) was completely unaccounted for. No one could say where it went in even the most general of terms. I remember thinking that it was a large enough sum to easily short up Social Security or provide healthcare.

I heartily agree to this! I believe what we are doing over there is important, I do not necessarily believe we couldn't manage it better. Very good point.

[sweeps]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Sure, national defense is a must-have. But where does defense end and offense begin? I classify Iraq as an offensive operation, rather than a defensive operation.

Regarding the "pursuit of happiness"... Whose happiness are we talking about? If we make wealthier individuals pay up for everyone's health care, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness? If we force doctors to work longer hours for less pay, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness? If we prevent someone from smoking crack in their own home, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness?

[jmjj215]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Sure, national defense is a must-have. But where does defense end and offense begin? I classify Iraq as an offensive operation, rather than a defensive operation.

And this is probably meritous of its own thread.

Regarding the "pursuit of happiness"... Whose happiness are we talking about? If we make wealthier individuals pay up for everyone's health care, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness? If we force doctors to work longer hours for less pay, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness? If we prevent someone from smoking crack in their own home, aren't we obstructing their pursuit of happiness?

Very well put. What do you do if someone else's happiness causes another's unhappiness?

[VJW]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

I'd welcome your documenting such a statement

The Golden State Solution

http://tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7233.html

Been There, Done That

http://tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7232.html

False, there is not an ER in the country that can get away with turning away a patient.

NBC News did an entire series about how ERs had turned people away. They always hid behind another excuse, of course.

There is absolutely no rationing at all in this country

45 million without health insurance is, by definition, rationing.

#

[VJW]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

I'm a fairly liberal guy, but total government control is never the answer.

Where have you ever seen this proffered, and how would such a scheme be considered "Liberal" ?

#

[sweeps]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Where have you ever seen this proffered

If you read through the thread there are some suggestions to raise taxes in order to provide universal healthcare. A reasonable person could infer from that statement that the government would control the healthcare system.

and how would such a scheme be considered "Liberal" ?

I assume you're being argumentative, so I'll humor you. In present-day American politics, conservative policies are those that advocate minimal government influence and control. Liberal policies are those that advocate more government influence and control. A policy that advocates a government-controlled healthcare system would therefore be considered a very liberal policy.

Next question?

[VJW]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

If you read through the thread there are some suggestions to raise taxes in order to provide universal healthcare. A reasonable person could infer from that statement that the government would control the healthcare system.

Well, that would be a wrong assumption, as I don’t know of a single federally elected official that has ever proposed anything like that.

I assume you're being argumentative

Not at all.

In present-day American politics, conservative policies are those that advocate minimal government influence and control. Liberal policies are those that advocate more government influence and control.

Actually, so-called “conservative policies” advocate “more government influence and control”, just in different areas.

A policy that advocates a government-controlled healthcare system

Which nobody has advocated.

would therefore be considered a very liberal policy.

Not by any definition I’ve ever seen. “Liberal” is a derivative of ‘Liberty’.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Aren't taxes the opposite of liberty because you don't have freedom over paying them or not?

[cercis]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Bruce

You have the option to live in the country you live in.

The alternative is no government. Everyone pays for everything on their own. Want police protection? Then you'd better pay out of your pocket. Want a road to drive on? You pay for it (and trust me, even just grading a short dirt/gravel road is extremely expensive).

Of course it also means that there are absolutely no protection for anyone else. Company A wants to dump toxic waste into your water supply? Too bad for you. Company B wants to harass you to get your land? Oh well. Person A wants to kill you? Well, the only prison system is one where the victim pays to keep the perp locked up.

There are still deserted islands you can buy and move to and not worry about any of it.

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Bruce

You have the option to live in the country you live in.

The alternative is no government. Everyone pays for everything on their own. Want police protection? Then you'd better pay out of your pocket. Want a road to drive on? You pay for it (and trust me, even just grading a short dirt/gravel road is extremely expensive).

Of course it also means that there are absolutely no protection for anyone else. Company A wants to dump toxic waste into your water supply? Too bad for you. Company B wants to harass you to get your land? Oh well. Person A wants to kill you? Well, the only prison system is one where the victim pays to keep the perp locked up.

There are still deserted islands you can buy and move to and not worry about any of it.

The way I see it, governments should exist to protect our liberty. This can be done by ensuring that the actions of person A doesn't impose actions upon person B by force and the general law of the land. It would also provide protection from force from overseas, but would under no circumstances invade other nations ala Iraq.

Everything else can be provided better by voluntary markets. That to me is a free society.

[cercis]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

Bruce, move to the US and tell me that our healthcare is better than yours. We have healthcare provided by the "voluntary" market.

I couldn't even get a doc to see me without health insurance. Never mind I could pay cash upfront, without insurance they weren't seeing me.

Health insurance costs anywhere from $80/month/person for the barest minimum (covers nothing, no discounts from docs, etc until you have paid out over $7500 in health costs in the year) to $200/month (covers a little more, discounts from docs, etc). We paid more than our mortgage and had crappy health insurance (but at least I could see a doc).

The trouble with capitalism is that while monopolies and price fixing aren't supposed to happen, they do. And proving it is extremely tough. When all the companies charge an arm and a leg, it's easy to say "well that's what we have to charge, really, we didn't get together with the other companies and decide that this would be our price."

In the US, we have CEOs making millions of dollars. Health company CEOs are very overpaid. There is no way I can be convinced that it couldn't be done a lot more cheaply by the gov't - no gov't official is going to be paid that much money. (Yes, I'm the one who thinks the gov't should do it).

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

It seems from what I've read that the US healthcare market is far from being a free marketplace so it is no surprise to me that neither price or service are improving under the forces of competition, purely because there doesn't seem to be much competition.

This is what the government should be trying to promote, competition, certainly not their own healthcare provision because that is certainly no better value. Here in Britain you pay based on your wages and in many areas of the country there are poor NHS services and many people have to go private for dentists, eyecare etc. because there are no NHS providers in their town. In the past 8 years tax revenue to the NHS has doubled, yet the services you get for that money has gone down.

True and fair competition is the key and it seems that neither America or Britain offer it.

[VJW]

Re: Healthcare: Pride & Prejudice

There are still deserted islands you can buy and move to and not worry about any of it.

Somalia should be paradise for the RightWingers and Libertarians.

#