Health Care Reform That I Can Support

This article supports my previosly stated position.

I said, "One factor is the continuing advancement in technologies and procedures being available. As these new options are available patients are asking for them and expecting insurance companies to pay for them. So insurance premiums go up accordingly."


Your article said, "What really drives health spending, the study finds, is that Americans receive more costly medical services than do other peoples, and they pay more for them. On a population-adjusted basis, the number of CT scans in 2005 was 72 percent higher in the United States than in Germany... Knee replacements were 90 percent more frequent than the average in other wealthy countries."

So your solution is which?

The government provides more costly medical services at a higher rate than other wealthy countries to everyone at taxpayer expense?

Or should the government control costs by not providing these more costly medical services also at taxpayer expense?

Since you advocate a single system with no opt out - it would appear that you have no other choices than the two above. Which "feels" best to you?

 

Why? If people want more expensive health care and pay for it with their own money what is it to you?

What is necessary to do this?

Outlaw smoking?
Outlaw fast food?
Outlaw alcohol?
Forced exercise programs?

 

Most of the folks that want Govt health care are those who won't get their own health care. Just because you do not want to earn your retirement or earn your living standard should not require the Govt to make someone else to pay for it. If you do want to pay for someone else's laziness then go right ahead but don't require the rest of us to particpate in your foolishness.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

I dealt with the government healthcare system while I was stationed in England. For some cases, where they don't have the appropriate doctor and/or specialist at the base clinic/hospital, they work with the local government healthcare system.

I was told that it would be 6 weeks before we saw the specialist for the first appointment. That would be the one where we determined what tests needed to be run, or could be run.

We need to do a LOT, LOT more studying of the countries that are using government-controlled healthcare systems, and not from the standpoint of the privileged politicians and high muckety-mucks. We need to find out what those people who currently can't afford health care will actually be getting for their tax dollars. We need to know if there will be an actual improvement, or if the person who has cancer will have a six-month wait after being diagnosed before they can see the oncologist...who will then be forced to tell them that if they had been seen six months earlier, they might have been able to do something about it.

I'm not a fan of socialized health care, because I've seen what "Joe Plumber" has to go through to get socialized health care.

 

I still don't understand what you are saying.

When you talk about incentives are you saying that people should be offered better or cheaper medical care if they don't drink, smoke, over eat, and exercise?

Sounds good... isn't that what insurance companies already do?

I could see the government taking a different approach though...

The poor are over weight because they can't afford non-fat food.
Smokers are addicted.
Alcoholism is a disease.
People who are over weight should not be discriminated against.

So the government would probably give those groups of people some higer level of health care or cheap premiums or a refundable tax credit or some such thing.

 

And how does putting the government in charge change any of that?

A single payer is a monopoly. Monopolies don't have competition so there is no incentive to deliver a better product or service for a cheaper price.

With the government in charge you are going to have beaurcrats deciding who gets what medical care and how much everyone pays.

Your solution brings the rest of us down.

What is wrong with a solution that involves those with no insurance and can't afford to buy it on their own ?

 

Medical insurance provided by an employer is part of the compensation paid for labor provided. Just as when one is dissatisfied with one's pay, someone who is dissatisfied with the medical insurance provided can renegotiate with their employer or seek alternative employment.

If you thought that your employer was not paying you enough would you expect a tax payer funded government solution to provide you with your raise?

You are fortunate that your employer provides insurance. But if the portion of the premium paid by you becomes unmanageable would not a better solution be one that addresses that problem alone withour taking options away from the rest of us?

But there is still an obligation to be informed. Voting without knowledge is foolish. Instead of voting based on one's personal "wants" it is better to vote based on the welfare of society as a whole within a moral context from a position of knowledge.

Your position in favor of a single payer - taxpayer funded - government run health care system would be stronger if you could explain why only for health care and not any or all of the other necessities in life.

 

And the government, through convincing the masses, are going to yet again relieve people of having to rely on God Almighty...

Well in a few more days you'll have in place the greatest potential for social programs in the history of the world.....

 

Just a fact of life when it comes to liberals like Ken.

 

This is the only way libs know how to get things done. By force via government. It is lazy, lacks any real thought, and dangerous.

 

I'm with you on this Ken. It is obvious to any sane person that health care needs an overhaul.

I believe that a government run system will be the best answer. I know I am tired of paying $100 a week for mediocre insurance.

I am confident that the Obama administration (man I like the sound of that!) will finally address this important need in our society.

 

It is government interference that caused the problem. They can't fix it, only make it worse.

That's what's happening right now with the mortgage lending fiasco. Loaning money to poor credit risks caused the problem. Government's solution is to do more lending to poor credit risks.

A Government run healthcare system will be a similar disaster.