Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Off Topic- Health Care

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    1



    The current system is awful. People seem to fear government bureaucrats getting involved in healthcare as middlemen, yet have no problem with the middleman known as an insurance company. These are for-profit entities whose express purpose is to prevent you from receiving health care. The less care you receive, the more money they save.


    Never mind the fact that the insurance industry and the government are already in bed with each other - why else do you think the health care bills are getting so watered down?


    I just don't understand the need to rush to the aid of corporations. I understand why people mistrust the government; I just don't get why we exalt Big Business in the same breath. In my mind, there's no difference between the two.


    The way I look at it, a public plan is the lesser of two evils. We already pay for the tens of thousands of people without insurance who use the ER as a doctor's office. You think hospitals just absorb those losses? No way; costs for everyone else just go up. If we're going to have social medicine, I'd rather it be official.

    Comment


    • #32
      1



      Thanks SerialSinner, for posting that link! Excellent article. Also, this video is an excellent explanation of the same Objectivist (and libertarian) concept - that health care is not a "right".


      This video is only 5 minutes long (it's the second half of a Tea Party speech), please take a moment and watch it, it really is excellent:


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acUQRWGC_8U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dianahsi eh.com%2Fblog%2Findex.shtml&feature=player_embedde d


      I think both this video and the article that SerialSinner posted explain very well why the proposed plan is immoral.

      Comment


      • #33
        1



        I'm more of a 'tribalist' type. The tribe took care of you, cradle to grave. If you were hungry, someone else fed you. If you were sick, someone else looked after you. You were expected to do the same. Native Americans did, and still do, practice giveaways. If they have too much, they set it out for whomever needs it. If they were changing their whole life, they might give away everything, including their home, so that they are literally starting over again on a new path. It is a very Socialistic outlook, at the heart of it. Yet everyone was independent and free to pursue their own goals. They were so free, our FF based the constitution after the Iroquois Laws of Confederation.

        Start weight: 250 - 06/2009
        Current weight: 199
        Goal: 145

        Comment


        • #34
          1



          @SS--Hmm, good article. So is objectivism essentially the polar opposite of communist ideals of welfare equality? While I really don't endorse socialism or communism, I find objectivism rather hard to swallow. Does a true objectivist oppose caring for the disabled, elderly, and any other individual who is physically unable to provide for themselves and poses a claim on others' help? Or is it that objectivists oppose being forced to provide for the indigents by means of government or social programs, and insist that any assistance be delivered in the form of charity? To me, requiring these unfortunates to rely upon charity is only to rob them of their dignity.


          I realize that it is a stretch to go from the needs of the disabled to a universal right to health care. But I am not sure that I can fully accept the objectivist argument when I cannot fundamentally agree with it. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the philosophy.

          Comment


          • #35
            1



            I am alarmed at the increasing power of the federal govt over the last 100 years, which has been massively accelerating the last few months. So it's both parties.


            re: healthcare.... there's so much to this.... it WILL end up a single payer system.... Obama has even said that he's in favor of a single payer system. There is no incentive for employers to continue to offer insurance if there's a public plan that's "so wonderful".


            I lived in Poland for 2 years just a few years after they threw out communism. I've seen what statist policies do to a country and people. It is NOT possible to have government provide health care to everyone and not end up with rationing.


            Just b/c I think that Obama's plan is SO SO SO wrong for America, doesn't mean that I think what we have doesn't need some changing. We have an HSA account, which is a great idea, but the problem is that there is no cost transparency and so the market forces don't actually come into play as much as they could. So here are some ideas that would help the system:


            1) separate health insurance from employment... it should be an independent purchase, just like auto insurance, therefore portable.


            2) require physicians and hospitals to provide patients with a price list (if asked). Do not allow them to charge different amounts based on which insurance a patient has or if they even have insurance. The price is the price. You either pay out of pocket or you see how much of the cost your insurance pays. If it doesn't cover it all, you can either pay the different or find someone else that costs less.


            3) allow/mandate that insurance companies provide cafeteria style coverage (just like with auto insurance and home insurance). I.e..... we're done having kids, my husband got snipped, so we have no need for OB or birth control etc. Mental health services, viagra, etc, no thank you. You should be able to tailor your insurance to cover just what you want it to, for example injury, catastrophic illness, maybe a preventative care segment (if you choose), etc.


            4) Insurance companies should not be able to find loopholes to cancel your policy due to getting sick. The policies should not have fine print. They should be transparent and easy to understand.


            These things would bring the cost of care down, cost of insurance down, and allow market forces to do the heavy lifting.


            Just remember that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.


            here's an article with some good links embedded and it makes some good points... http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._obamacar.html

            Comment


            • #36
              1

              [quote]

              I&#39;m more of a &#39;tribalist&#39; type. The tribe took care of you, cradle to grave. If you were hungry, someone else fed you. If you were sick, someone else looked after you. You were expected to do the same. Native Americans did, and still do, practice giveaways.</blockquote>


              That&#39;s all well and good (sorry Katt, don&#39;t mean to keep picking on you)


              But you JUST KNOW with socialized healthcare, some people will take advantage of that! At least in a tribe, you care for another because, well.. you care about the well-being of your tribesmen. But the U.S. is not a tribe. Like Diana said, Ninny and her brood will be taking up precious doctor time with every sniffle and sliver-- JUST because she can! What about the people who need real IMMEDIATE health care, but can&#39;t get an appointment for months because of the sludge of people in the system who are wasting every bodies time.


              Okay, I&#39;m done now. This is a pointless argument now.

              Comment


              • #37
                1



                @Geckogirl:

                "1) separate health insurance from employment... it should be an independent purchase,"


                YES!!! Love it!


                "2) require physicians and hospitals to provide patients with a price list (if asked). "


                YES!!! Love it! Or at least a quote for what services they are about to provide, so you can choose whether you want it or not.


                "3) allow/mandate that insurance companies provide cafeteria style coverage (just like with auto insurance and home insurance). I.e..... we&#39;re done having kids, my husband got snipped, so we have no need for OB or birth control etc. Mental health services, viagra, etc, no thank you. You should be able to tailor your insurance to cover just what you want it to, for example injury, catastrophic illness, maybe a preventative care segment (if you choose), etc."


                Actually mine is like that. I provide my own health insurance for myself, and I chose no maternity coverage and a very high deductible ($5,000), so it&#39;s basically just catastrophic.


                "4) Insurance companies should not be able to find loopholes to cancel your policy due to getting sick."


                I read my policy from beginning to end, it actually was written fairly clearly and the only cancellation I could find was in the event of fraud.


                I had to request my written policy multiple times before they actually sent it to me though. They are supposed to send it to you and give you 30 days to read it and either accept or deny their offer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  1



                  @Geckogirl: I really like your ideas. Insurance being tied to employment is my primary issue with the current system. Also, the lack of a price list is ridiculous. What other business can sell their commodity to consumers without displaying their prices? Because I have paid out of pocket for any medical treatment, I always ask how much any treatment or test will cost. I am always met with an stammering response from the doctor because even they never actually know how much their services cost. Mostly, I think #3 is what would really help most people; there simply aren&#39;t enough options to tailor an effective, affordable plan to meet everyone&#39;s needs.


                  I still think that there are underlying issues of the system needing to change from episodic, retroactive care relying on prescriptions and surgeries to preventative, proactive care relying on wellness oriented lifestyles. Or at least incentives being incorporated for those who do live healthy; I don&#39;t want to infer that people should be forced into living clean. I suppose it is a right to destroy one&#39;s body if one chooses.


                  I am happy to see someone put forth some solid ideas. Why have several people thrown up their hands in disgust and declared that they were "done" with the discussion? I really don&#39;t things were getting that nasty. Insinuating that the opposition is wallowing in ignorance like swine is an empty criticism if no effort has been taken to remedy that ignorance.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    1



                    No worries, Ecala. I&#39;m not feeling picked upon. And you are correct. Americans are not tribal and have not been raised with such values. Of course there will be people who take advantage of it. People take advantage of the current system, from citizens, to corporations to government.

                    Start weight: 250 - 06/2009
                    Current weight: 199
                    Goal: 145

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      1



                      @Shine
                      [quote]

                      You have appealed to my emotions, but I am not convinced until you appeal to my logic.</blockquote>


                      Rod Stewart said it: some guys have all the luck. Are you monogamous?
                      [quote]

                      Or is it that objectivists oppose being forced to provide for the indigents by means of government or social programs, and insist that any assistance be delivered in the form of charity?</blockquote>


                      I believe this is the case. And I also have trouble swallowing it.

                      My issue with objectivism and libertarisnism in general is that they are built under the assumption that we are all innately and equally equipped to "climb the ladder". So if you do, great. Anyone should be allowed to climb as high as they want and have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor without being "pulled down" by the "lazy"; and no one should tell others how to enjoy their rightfully enjoyed benefits.


                      I get this perspective, and I get the notion that everyone should ne accountable for what they do of do not do.


                      My issue: I think we cannot assume that everyone is equally equipped to climb the ladder, and that this difference in "equipment" is a result of variables beyond one&#39;s control, not merit.


                      We all *necessarily* start the climbing race with different conditions resulting from nature and nurture. This can&#39;t be ignored.


                      It is the nurture component which worries me the most. Many people are raised with no access to a good quality education, a far from ideal environment to develop a healthy personality or apropriate IQ, and with a lack if good role models and social connections.


                      This is why the rich tend to stay rich and the poor tend to stay poor. And this is why I think the government should step in to at least compensate for the "nurture" inequalities amongst people living in deprived environments. It is only once the negative "nurture" aspects have been dealt whith that I would feel comfortable not having some sort of free social care. Until then, a typical libertarian "meritocracy" becomes, imo, dangerously close to advocating for social darwinism.

                      “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde
                      "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw
                      "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." -Martin Mull

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        1



                        "Many people are raised with no access to a good quality education, a far from ideal environment to develop a healthy personality or apropriate IQ, and with a lack if good role models and social connections."


                        Actually, though, many of our greatest people in history have come from backgrounds of quite horrible adversity (for example, J.S. Bach was orphaned at a very young age). Also think of the many, many immigrants to the US (like my own grandparents) that came here with nothing, no education, not even a basic understanding of English, and managed to create a wonderful legacy for themselves and their descendants.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          1



                          Obviously our current system isn&#39;t working. How to fix it is the question.


                          Perhaps if people pay for basic health care themselves but major expensive stuff is covered? If people payed at least part of their basic medical care out of pocket they be less likely to get medical treatment for little stuff and take better care of themselves.

                          How do we get people to make good health decisions (diet, exercise) for themselves? Too bad the advise the gov&#39;t and the the medical industry give is so bad. If we could just change that we&#39;d save many billions per year.


                          Focus people! Communism? That&#39;s absurd. Talk about the issue being discussed, don&#39;t attempt to win by throwing around insulting terms. It&#39;s like bringing up Hitler, once you do it you&#39;ve admitted that you don&#39;t have real opinions/ideas to contribute.


                          bruce b.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            1



                            Actually, I question the concept that our current system isn&#39;t working. I believe this is a manufactured &#39;crisis&#39;. Most folks I talk to are quite happy with the current system, I know I am.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              1



                              >>Actually, I question the concept that our current system isn&#39;t working. I believe this is a manufactured &#39;crisis&#39;. Most folks I talk to are quite happy with the current system, I know I am.<<


                              I have good coverage too. We are the lucky ones. I personally know several people who have horrible stories to tell. They match well the stories I&#39;ve read. I think it&#39;s true that millions of Americans aren&#39;t so lucky as we are. I think everyone should have equal access to medical care and not be bankrupted if they need something major. I have no idea how we get there.


                              bruce b.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                1



                                This is a fairly lengthy video, nearly 30min, but very informative.


                                http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html


                                OntheBayou, I am with you completely. Great comments, also, SerialSinner.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X