debate on universal access to health care

B

bobmcree

10 kW
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
618
The thread on saving $27 a year by changing the defrost function on your fridge has become polluted by a discussion about the merits of capitalism vs. socialism. I said i would not post to it again because i do not want to put off people who just want to talk about refrigerators.

I am working with Organizing for America to make universal access to healthcare in the US more than just a dream. After RF nerve ablation my back pain is greatly reduced and i have stopped just waiting to die. I really believe that it can happen. Organized political groups are spreading lies and half-truths about the horrors of socialized medicine and i am going to help to fight them. I invite people to share their personal experiences and their opinions on the subject, and i would ask you to consider whether this issue is important enough to get involved or donate. http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

I especially would like to hear from members who have universal health care in their countries.
 
Some things work better under a capitalist structure, and other things work better under a collective structure. It's not technically socialism, because the government doesn't own the means of production, they essentially would just own a large insurance organization that pays many of the healthcare providers. Like a nonprofit health insurance company.

If you're against universal healthcare because you think it's socialism, how do you feel about:
Free K-12 education?
Social security?
Food stamps?
Medicare?
Public roads?
 
thanks for moving the discussion here. people who are interested in how we got here can go back to the other thread. i agree totally that pure capitalism and pure socialism are probably unachievable in the immediate future, and that each system has its merits. my point was basically that there is room for some socialism within an inherently capitalistic system and certainly there is room for capitalist enterprise in a true socialist state. i just believe that food, shelter, and access to adequate health care are basic human rights. Our system has gone too far in the capitalist direction, by which i mean that our democracy is really an oligarchy, and the ruling class are the people with enough money and power to get their way, including the outright sale of congressional votes to the highest bidder. Just yesterday, after all the promises to have transparent access to the lawmaking process and time for public debate, a provision to allow gun nuts to carry loaded concealed weapons in national parks was tacked on at the last minute to a credit card reform bill.

These people are not all cops, some of them are bounty hunters, gun dealers, drug dealers not convicted of a felony yet, or just people with money who can buy a concealed carry permit with a political contribution. i have written and called the white house to ask the president to veto the bill unless this unrelated provision is stripped out. if it is such a good idea, let it stand on its own merits. the gun lobby argument that it just brings national park rules into accord with national forest and blm regulations is insane. there are gun nuts riding around on atv's all over these lands shooting everything in sight. is it going to take some private dick who hears a noise outside his tent in Yosemite and shoots a boy scout to make people see this? not all gun owners are nuts, just the ones who think it is a good idea to carry a gun in yosemite.

we cannot solve all our problems at once. i think access to affordable health care is priority 1. i do not support the idea of free heart transplants for 70 year olds and we might not be able to afford spending millions of dollars on preemies with only a 10% chance of living. On the other hand, the need for the new heart might have been eliminated if the guy had better access to affordable health care, or the mother might have received the prenatal care every pregnant woman has a basic human right to receive. We cannot afford not to change the system. it is broken.

my preference would be a single payer system, but i do not think we can start with that. the insurance companies, drug companies, and HMO's are too politically powerful and there is too much money to be made providing way overboard health care to those who can pay and ignoring the rest. i am willing to work hard for whatever compromise can be achieved between free everything for everyone and the system we have now. It is a huge river to cross, but it is getting wider and we are getting sicker. We might not get another chance (in my lifetime anyway).

i believe campaign finance reform is the only way we will get a single payer system. it looks like there is a good chance we can get better access to health care for people without insurance at some level. The system is so broken it cannot be repaired. it must be torn down and rebuilt anew. we cannot achieve this through anarchy, and it is not going to happen unless we make it happen.
 
Yeah, putting the healthcare insurance industry out of business overnight and replacing it with an untested system isn't the way to go. Sorry Mr. Kucinich. Government provided healthcare insurance with sliding scale payments is the perfect transition to single payer. Eventually the rates may be lowered far enough that for-profit insurance companies will start looking elsewhere for easier pickings, and it will be a gradual transition that minimizes damage to insurance companies and their stockholders.

I dislike the term "gun-nuts." I like target shooting. I think the measure passed because most people don't really care that much about the issue, and maybe the Democrats are hoping the militia-types will calm down about the Dems "taking their guns away." I think we're all tired of getting credit card bills 14 days before the constantly-shifting due dates, and that has a more meaningful impact on everyone's lives than whether Joe the Plumber can pack his cougar defenses when he goes hiking.
 
i did not mean to deride gun owners. i used to hunt, was raised with guns. i chose to stop after looking into the eyes of a dying buck. i still enjoy target shooting. there are gun owners and there are gun nuts. i feel the ones who need to carry a concealed weapon in a national park are nuts. if anyone inferred i was calling all gun owners nuts i apologize.

this is an old cow story, but updated in the last few years. note the various forms of capitalism and communism.


Feudalism
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
Pure Socialism
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.
Bureaucratic Socialism
Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.
Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
Pure Communism
You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
Real World Communism
You share two cows with your neighbours. You and your neighbours bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.
Russian Communism
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.
Perestroika
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the "free" market.
Cambodian Communism
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
Militarianism
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
Totalitarianism
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
Pure Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.
Representative Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
British Democracy
You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.
Bureaucracy
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
Pure Anarchy
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.
Pure Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Capitalism
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
Environmentalism
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
Political Correctness
You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
Surrealism
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
Enron Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank. He then executes a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by your CFO who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on six more. http://www.cyberclass.net/ref2cows.htm

Now do you see why a company with $62 billion in assets is declaring bankruptcy?
 
julesa said:
Some things work better under a capitalist structure, and other things work better under a collective structure. It's not technically socialism, because the government doesn't own the means of production, they essentially would just own a large insurance organization that pays many of the healthcare providers. Like a nonprofit health insurance company.

If you're against universal healthcare because you think it's socialism, how do you feel about:
Free K-12 education?
Social security?
Food stamps?
Medicare?
Public roads?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, when was the last time you paid for your own private Fire Department or Police Department. Would you really trust a "private" Fire or Police department to be fair to everyone when you call 911 ?
 
knightmb said:
julesa said:
Some things work better under a capitalist structure, and other things work better under a collective structure. It's not technically socialism, because the government doesn't own the means of production, they essentially would just own a large insurance organization that pays many of the healthcare providers. Like a nonprofit health insurance company.

If you're against universal healthcare because you think it's socialism, how do you feel about:
Free K-12 education?
Social security?
Food stamps?
Medicare?
Public roads?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, when was the last time you paid for your own private Fire Department or Police Department. Would you really trust a "private" Fire or Police department to be fair to everyone when you call 911 ?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. We do have private enforcement agents already. They take care of people in poor neighborhoods with inadequate publicly-funded police support. They're called "gangsters."
 
USA does not have to change to a socialist government to have universal health care. Just find the best way that works for the magority, and for god sake stop charging your poor people double money for pills than the rest of the free world. These people are stressed enough already.

The Canadian system works surprisingly well no matter what government we vote in. We have three main party's, USA have only two for some strange reason.

Sure, we have to lobby our doctor sometimes to get a hip replacement before the next guy, but even if you get last place you still have top notch hip components in reasonable amount of time. I know because i had to wait almost a year for my hip replacement. Pain is difficult to express for some.

As you can tell I'm not a political person, just my story with a happy ending.
 
recumbent said:
USA does not have to change to a socialist government to have universal health care. Just find the best way that works for the magority, and for god sake stop charging your poor people double money for pills than the rest of the free world. These people are stressed enough already
Click to expand...

agreed we do not need to go to pure socialism or anything close to it, but we need to move to the moderate left, and health care should be regarded as a basic human right. some people are so afraid of change they will try to stop anything new, and some are afraid that universal access to health care is a path down a slippery slope to the dreaded communism. some who have good insurance fear their benefits will be reduced. i think enough people realize we have to do something that the window of opportunity is open, who knows for how long. The biggest enemy we face is ignorance. We know how to fight that one. There does not have to be anything magical about being the hundredth monkey. You smile at someone, you let them into the traffic lane, you open a door for some stranger with their hands full, and it spreads like a disease.
 
It seems ridiculous to presume private and public health insurance cannot coexist. I think it'd be reasonable to provide a basic health care insurance that applies to every legal citizen, and then anyone else who wants more coverage could go the private route to go "Above and beyond". This way, the basic level of needed insurance can provided and would still allow for those with the means of for greater coverage to do so. Essentially, the rich could still get the best health coverage, but it wouldn't be at the expense of the poorest.(I.e., richer patients push up health care costs because they can and are willing to afford more for better doctors, which ends up "setting the rate" for private health care, to a certain degree.)
 
swbluto said:
It seems ridiculous to presume private and public health insurance cannot coexist. I think it'd be reasonable to provide a basic health care insurance that applies to every legal citizen, and then anyone else who wants more coverage could go the private route to go "Above and beyond". This way, the basic level of needed insurance can provided and would still allow for those with the means of for greater coverage to do so. Essentially, the rich could still get the best health coverage, but it wouldn't be at the expense of the poorest.(I.e., richer patients push up health care costs because they can and are willing to afford more for better doctors, which ends up "setting the rate" for private health care, to a certain degree.)
Click to expand...
Another good point.

I would compare it to the Postal Office and (Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc.) in that you can get some basic packages shipped through the Post Office for fairly cheap, but if you just have to have the latest technology of package tracking and next day delivery, then the options for Fed Ex, UPS, etc are still available for a higher fee.

Healthcare was universal at some point in our history before President Nixon (among the others) signed into the law that basically fractured the healthcare system and thus cut off the poor completely. Healthcare become private and thus started the process of "can't help you without an insurance card" for a lot of big hospitals.

As was said earlier, there is a balance. At one time, my daughter got a finger caught in the car door. It looked bad, we thought maybe it was broken. So we took her to the hospital. They did one X-ray and basically said "she's fine, it will get better, leave the ice on it" and thus later found that we had a $500 bill even after insurance due to so much BS charges and fees.
 
My two watts worth;

As with several things in the U.S., the title does not accurately describe the content, IE "The Patriot Act". Our U.S. "Health Care" is really "Illness and Injury Care".

On a large statistical scale, We need to focus on our choices and how they impact our health costs.

If we charge bad drivers more for auto inurance, and give discounts for safe driving, why can't we charge more to folks that smoke a lot, dont exercise and stay 60lbs over weight?

Why dont we have real health classes required in High school, rather than this endless debate on Birth control vs abstinence and creationism vs evolution.

Right now we should have education on every health condition a senior citizen has or has a high probability of getting before being eligible for Medicare. Seniors would have to prove competency in these areas thru a written test. Things such as causes, symtoms, prevention, etc. Then if you pass the test and make better lifestyle choices. (quit smoking, loose weight, ride an ebike -;) you get a premium decrease.

Then start moving the date younger and younger till we get to 30 year olds.

With a program that encourages health education, and better personal responibility payback, we get healthier citizens, less peak load on the medical system, and costs that are more manageable.

Ie, conditions such as preventable type II diabetes, preventable high blood pressure/heart problems and extreme obesity will soon consume 30% of medical costs.

As others have indicated in other posts, MUCH money is to be made convincing people to eat unhealthy food, and lots of it. And little money is to be made when a family goes to the park to play Frisbee instead of going to the movies. But there is lots of money to be saved, and more enjoyable lives to be had.

So add health education to the mix of universal access to health care and I am in. I have pretty good health insurance, but lots of my friends dont.

d
 
many people can't afford heath care because they have nothing to trade! Make it legal to sell organs (in the future upon death). MAKE IT LEGAL!
with the money from futures contracts every family could afford health care, and be in charge of how the money is spent.

Bob,
do you have any good parts? what would they bring in a free market? This is capitalism at its best. And you save anothers life!(someday when you die of natural causes)
 
All my parts are already available for donation as soon as I'm done using them. In some cases, even before -- I'm on the marrow donor list.

Making selling organs illegal would create a market for stolen organs.

Edit: Oops, I meant making it LEGAL would create a market... durrr
 
YES!
The huge black market in booze nearly disappeared when booze was legalized.
.
And NO i don't advocate STOLEN organs LOL
That is CRIME, not capitalism.
.
Funny how rich people that can afford the operation want suckers to GIVE them FREE organs.
 
When universal healthcare is available, we'll all be able to afford the operation... at the time my organs have been donated, I won't be needing them anymore, so I don't think that makes me a sucker. :) If I should need an organ, I would hope the one I receive is donated under the same circumstances.

That's what concerns me about a legal market for them... not that circumstances would "force" me to choose to donate for money. What really concerns me is the possibility they will be taken by force. I would like that black market to stay as small as possible. :mrgreen:
 
nutsandvolts said:
Matt, do you think that poor people living in poverty should sell their organs, as a solution to their poverty?
Click to expand...
No!
They should sell a 1 year futures contract(any year they want to be in this system), the money to ONLY be used for health care. There could be enough each year to fund a health insurance policy, or directly pay for basic care. They don't supply any organs until after they die.
.
This is a solution to fund their health care ONLY. I don't expect there to be money left over for anything else, as health care is so expensive. The amount earned each year could prove to be rather small per person, but a family plan could be a lifesaver when 1 gets sick.
 
regarding Mr Mcrees post about all the isms.

I would point out that the US limited its representative republic to just the powers that were spelled out in the Constitution, they were very, very few.

When you allow a government to acquire power, you get one of those isms.

Some power grabs that happened in the US were:
Judicial Review
Promotion of the social welfare (preamble)
Interstate commerce clause (big one here)

Now we in the US have to deal with many of the isms listed in that post because we allowed the federal government to obtain some power. I think it will get worse.



For Jules, and the list of Gov freebies (public schools etc):
No to all, but I have to admit you got me on the roads. I'd say if public roads were necessary, then limit that to the state government.
 
TPA said:
For Jules, and the list of Gov freebies (public schools etc):
No to all, but I have to admit you got me on the roads. I'd say if public roads were necessary, then limit that to the state government.
Click to expand...
let me make sure i understand you. you believe we would be better off with millions MORE sick, uneducated, unemployable citizens running around? oh yeah, AND they have guns.

the guns in national parks deal looks like it was done to get Richard Shelby's Republican support. without it the credit card reform might not have passed congress. i understand pragmatism i just wish congress would. i will not hold this one against obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top