Health Care Legislation to cost $1 trillion

IamAlejo · 06-14-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Socialization of healthcare is the only answer. That or the total abolition of the health insurance industry. Let's make hospitals and doctors compete with each other just like every other type of business has too.

Great idea. Abolish an entire industry in the middle of an economic downturn with unemployment already much higher than expected.

The timing of this is my biggest argument against it. Makes absolutely zero sense to do this right now. Throw that on top of all campaign stating there would be no tax on health benefits given to employees and he's already reneged on that stating he's giving it a thought.

The 'pubs in Congress are about as devoid of good leadership as the Democrats [who have Pelosi and Reid!], which leads to the Dems going about this completely the wrong way and the 'pubs drawing the wrong lines in the sand.

Throw in the fact that there isn't even a proposal for this...just his good ole "call for change" that will lead us to another inept "stimulus" bill on steroids. The fact that he supports a single payer system is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard of.

I have little to no doubt that there will be major change to healthcare. I'd be willing to bet it fails. We have leaders right now that have a penchant for throwing the government into things it knows nothing about. This idea is a great one in theory but not practical.

Bane of your existence · 06-14-2009, 05:38 PM

Are you saying Obama is a reneger?

IamAlejo · 06-14-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bane of your existence

Are you saying Obama is a reneger?

:dagger

Moreover though...our lawmakers have been notoriously bad at projecting program costs and there is actually no reason for them to be accurate. They have no skin in the game for what may happen 20 years from now. Paint a blue-sky, rosy scenario and collect your pension when you retire. The government's previous record in administering matters such as these should give you pause [cause we all see the great shape social security is in].

Hesher · 06-14-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bane of your existence

Yeah, firemen and cops were there for the rich. That's the point. You're forgetting about the drop-in-the-bucket problem. Think about National Defense. In a free market there is no incentive for you to pay for your share. The defense as a whole is such a giant thing, that your small contribution will go unnoticed. However, it's not something that you can give to only the people that pay for it. Everyone enjoys its benifits regardless of what they chipped in. It's the same thing with firemen. They wont go stand by a house while it's burning just to make sure the fire doesn't get out of hand and spread to buildings that paid for fire protection. Everyone enjoys it's benifits so it wouldn't hurt not to pay for it. That's why there has to be a tax, to make sure everyone contributes. In healthcare, it's easy to exclude the people that don't pay. You need treatment, you pay. This example is exclusive, therefore not a social good.

I'm with you and all. I'm just helping you out because some people like to argue by shooting down moot points of your diatribe, making you look like 'you don't know what you're talking about,' instead of talking about the overall problem.

I see what you're trying to say, and I appreciate how nice you are about it considering I called your post bull****. National Defense is a better example of that, but I still think Police and Firemen could also be a private business. There is no reason the Police can't enforce the law on some people and not on others (like corrupt Police or security guards) or protect some people and not others. The fact that Police are out there arresting lawbreakers is only because they are paid by the government and not by individuals (unless they're corrupt). It's also possible for firemen to wet down the houses on either side of the burning house, and I've read accounts of them doing exactly that back when you had to pay for fire protection.

Even ignoring the point of helping others by contributing to their health care, isn't the whole point of it to make it affordable? On a purely selfish basis, you are getting the same level of care as they are for what is likely a better price than what you had or didn't have under private insurance. I don't think we should outlaw private practice or anything like that, but an appropriate level of minimum care is necessary in my opinion. That's why I support welfare, government pension, all that sort of thing and why I live in Canada.

It remains to be seen what plan is the best and whether the government will even be able to pull off a socialized health program in the States; Alejo's point is well taken. I think it's a step in the right direction though and high on the list of homeland priorities that Obama should be focusing on in lieu of saber wielding in other countries.

IamAlejo · 06-14-2009, 05:59 PM

one last thing...something similar to what the Dutch have with a tiered approach would be my ideal system. I'm still not sure it'd be possible here in the US but if anything it has the best chance.

Bane of your existence · 06-14-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesher

and I appreciate how nice you are

Blasphemy

Hesher · 06-14-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane of your existence

blasphemy

:d

asshat · 06-15-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesher

I see what you're trying to say, and I appreciate how nice you are about it considering I called your post bull****. National Defense is a better example of that, but I still think Police and Firemen could also be a private business. There is no reason the Police can't enforce the law on some people and not on others (like corrupt Police or security guards) or protect some people and not others. The fact that Police are out there arresting lawbreakers is only because they are paid by the government and not by individuals (unless they're corrupt). It's also possible for firemen to wet down the houses on either side of the burning house, and I've read accounts of them doing exactly that back when you had to pay for fire protection.

.

Don't you find anything unsettling about for-profit law enforcement? They're should only be as many cops as are absolutely necessary. Certain things like police and corrections shouldn't be for-profit. If your trying to expand your business what incentive do you have to stop crime?What incentive do you have not to put more people in jail for increasingly minor infractions.

Hesher · 06-15-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asshat

Don't you find anything unsettling about for-profit law enforcement? They're should only be as many cops as are absolutely necessary. Certain things like police and corrections shouldn't be for-profit. If your trying to expand your business what incentive do you have to stop crime?What incentive do you have not to put more people in jail for increasingly minor infractions.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Police, firemen, etc. are all public services that our governments have decided to socialize in order to provide them to everyone, and health care, in my opinion, should be like that. I find for-profit or private government industries pretty unsettling, for sure. I actually wrote a paper for Sociology this year about how the for-profit prison system in California is supported by things like mandatory minimums that are essentially nothing more than political grandstanding. Private ownership of what should be public, not-for-profit corporations is totally the wrong way to go. We agree, dude.

asshat · 06-15-2009, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesher

That's exactly what I'm saying. Police, firemen, etc. are all public services that our governments have decided to socialize in order to provide them to everyone, and health care, in my opinion, should be like that. I find for-profit or private government industries pretty unsettling, for sure. I actually wrote a paper for Sociology this year about how the for-profit prison system in California is supported by things like mandatory minimums that are essentially nothing more than political grandstanding. Private ownership of what should be public, not-for-profit corporations is totally the wrong way to go. We agree, dude.

....ha,I can't interpret sarcasm,....anyways, I read up on how the private prison sector was a strong supporter of the three strikes legislation, and the "war on drugs" and all that jazz.

06-14-2009, 05:59 PM	#35 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	one last thing...something similar to what the Dutch have with a tiered approach would be my ideal system. I'm still not sure it'd be possible here in the US but if anything it has the best chance. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

06-14-2009, 05:38 PM	#32 (permalink)
Bane of your existence Such That Join Date: May 2007 Location: Austin, Tx Posts: 1,197	Are you saying Obama is a reneger?