1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Would Socialist Healthcare Be Acceptable If...

Discussion in 'Health' started by ShivanCommander, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Please explain.
     
  2. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    That's the question. I really want single-payer but I am willing to admit that we as a society are probably not yet mature enough to have it as I'd like to see it. Just to really piss all of you off I'll go ahead and throw education in the same boat as medical care.:)
     
  3. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    All single-payer means is there's a single-payer. It could be you paying without any help from your employer, or it could be the government paying citizens medical costs with tax money. The payment method doesn't make something Socialist. If the government decided to control aspects of health-care delivery to the point that it couldn't occur without doing it the "government way"...then we're talking Socialism. BTW, I would argue that we were very close to that point before the ACA.
     
  4. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland

    Why? Is it because government has done such a good job with education?
     
  5. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    My position is that medical care and education are rights. I know many people disagree with me. You are assuming that I want the government to control all aspects of these areas. I do not.

    Just out of curiosity, what problems do you think public education has today and how do you think the Federal government contributed to those problems?
     
  6. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    The big one for me is getting small business out from under having to arrange HC for employees. Another reason is to make people actual customers in addition to being recipients. I also think that single-payer eventually will lead to the elimination of health insurance providers, which to my way of thinking is a very good thing.
     
  7. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland

    I made no such assumption. How could you conclude I did?

    Problems you ask. They are to numerous to mention. The p-schools are indoctrination centers run by leftists to promote the state first and foremost, but also to protect the monopolistic position of teachers and their unions.
     
  8. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    Because we were talking about a program run by the Feds and education had been linked to it by me. Asking me about government involvement in education at any level other than the federal level wouldn't have made any sense in that context. My question was off-topic anyway so it doesn't really matter.
     
  9. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,840
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    the idea behind making people customers is suspect due to requirements ss to what must be covered. not much magic in pricing.

    this is made worse by forcing people into individual policies where they lose the benefit of spreading the cost across the group.

    it does give business an out of the time and trouble but st a high.cost.to their employees.

    if you are content to suffer the rampant fraud that the government tolerates then killing commercial ins lets you feel good about putting all the people who worked for them out of work.

    but to eavh his own.
     
  10. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    Cost-shifting occurs right now, why do you think Tylenol pills cost what they do in hospitals? If you have an employer sponsored plan you can't do anything about it because if you walk away from the plan the employer is offering, you are now on the hook for 100% of the HC costs within a market designed for employer contributions of at least 80%. At least, it used to be 80%. The first sentence of the quote is a very good argument for eliminating health insurance companies. Un-needed bureaucracy.



    If everything remains the same other than the employees now paying on their own, yep, they're going to get screwed. But, at some point the cash that is now freed up will be shared in some way either through new benefits or higher wages. Especially if workers comp can be rolled into HC instead of being treated as a labor issue.

    The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on fraud and I never suggested that FWA is something that should be ignored, in fact I think it would be crucial to keep it in check, as it is crucial right now.
     
  11. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,840
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around

    I know why tylenol costs what it does, do you ? what would you "do about it" ?

    how do you propose to pay the nurse to obtain the order from the doc, get it to pharmacy, have the tech check for interactions, fill the order and get it to the floor where the nurse then has to dispense it ? do you have a plan for that ?

    will it pass muster with legal ?

    the ins cos are necessary overhead, if you feel otherwise you need to do a little research.




    what money is being freed up and how ?




    the private is demonstrably better at managing fraud as they have a critical interest in doing so that the govt never does as it is not required to make ends meet. moreover, there is a reason the AMA is so cozy a lobby with capital hill. the sshort answer is that medicare is designed specifially to be a cash cow.

    the fact is that there is nothing in obamacare to reduce costs nor was there intended to be. yes I realize thats not singlempayer. but if you think the government can run healthcare more efficiently you need only look at the insolvency of medicare vs commercial insurers who manage to make a little money for its stockholders by effective manaagement.
     
    Cruella likes this.
  12. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country
    medical care is not a right in the sense that one has a right to have it given to them. it is a right in the sense that one can go and pay for it without someone interfering in their ability to get it. now that I type that i see that the aca is interfering in our right to get healthcare for ouselvelves.
     
    Gipper likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice