bush=clueless on health care

[adam]

Maybe you're right... health care should be administered by the states.  Texas has a whopper of a problem, in that case:  31% of Texans are uninsured.  Another ironic facet of the George W. Bush-NeoCon/Health care saga.

Here we agree. Mandatory, state health insurance is a feasible, and likely effective system.

You'll never catch me giving Bush credit for his term as governor of Texas. The man was an imbecile then, more so than he is now. Ann Richards will always be my governor.

Jamespol and I agree that a state health insurance program is more efficient than a national one.

And I miss Richards as well...I'm still upset I haven't gotten to see her as gov.

Glad to see some sensible liberals/populists around here.

Ann was a truly great lady, a rare Democrat that I could respect.

[WalterMitty]

you know, anytime it snows 5 inches in santa fe, or if there is a mudslide outside san diego, the federal government declares a disaster and rushes aid in.

that is what we need to do with health care.  declare the currrent system a 'disaster' and fix the problem.

I agree.  I also believe we need to declare war on drugs, that should fix our problem there.

Not only this, but poor people have a God-given right to affordable high speed internet access, air-conditioning, and free universal cell phone coverage.

dont be ignorant.

I could say the same about your 'assumption' that the government could affectively provide adequate health care to all it's people for free.

edit:htmldon's right.  This is the same government that doesn't work at national disasters.  This is only people in one part of the country, I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be if the federal government were to assume all responsiblity for 'health care'.

the free market hasnt done a good job at providing health for everyone.  how would the government do any worse.

just face it...you wish the poor folks wouldnt act so uppity.  they should learn their place on the ladder.

Walter what is it that you want to happen? Medical costs have to be paid somehow, either you buy health insurance or pay out of pocket, or the government pays and raises your taxes to cover it. The only other option is that government forces someone else to pay for your healthcare. Which one are you hoping for?

im certainly not opposed to higher taxes if it means universal coverage.

and as ive said many times, i believe we should 'share the pain'.  if there is to be higher taxes for universal coverage, everyone should have to pay.  i dont believe in just socking it to the 'rich'.  everyone should pay their fair share.

[Sam Spade]

Theoretical question for mitty:  If Universal Coverage results in a system that does any one of three things, how would you feel towards its implementation?

1. Costs more per individual than the present system?
2. Limits the amount of money drug companies take in more than the present system does, thereby resulting in less research in new drugs?
3. Creates less choice for patients among the doctors they can choose to attend than the present system does?

[Ebowed]

Not only this, but poor people have a God-given right to affordable high speed internet access, air-conditioning, and free universal cell phone coverage.

A rare reasonable post from MaC!

[WalterMitty]

Theoretical question for mitty:  If Universal Coverage results in a system that does any one of three things, how would you feel towards its implementation?

1. Costs more per individual than the present system?
2. Limits the amount of money drug companies take in more than the present system does, thereby resulting in less research in new drugs?
3. Creates less choice for patients among the doctors they can choose to attend than the present system does?

first of all, im dont pretend to be an expert int he health field, but ill try my best to answer your questions.

1.  i find that hard to believe.  most people with an *adequate* health care plan are paying out the ass for it (or are lucky enough to have generous employers)

2..  i must admit im biased against the drug companies.  i think of them as lying, egg-sucking dogs.  but im confident that they will still be making money hand over fist in any system...maybe less money...but still making substantial profits.

3.  that is a legitimate concern.  waiting lists is another legitimate concern.  those are details that would definitely have to be ironed out.

[Sam Spade]

I didn't know this country has a "free-market" health care system.

Good Point.

But is there anyone here that thinks that the current system works?

And if you (general royal you) think the current system is broken, what should run a new system (actual free market or govt or some other system) and what should its priorities be? (ie cost, or coverage etc)

I agree that the current system is below par.  I think we also would probably agree there could be much worse systems.

The solution is difficult.  I suspect that a universal system would trade lesser costs for lesser advancement in medicine and less freedom for doctors among patients. 

It is quite possible greater costs could actually be part of the system (as I posed in my theoretical before). 

Most of the new drugs and medicines in the world come from the United States, and part of that has to do with the large amounts of profits, but I don't see lesser profits making those who manufacture drugs more interested in doing it.  A government-run drug manufacturing system would be a catastrophe, as it would be focused on what diseases are PC (like AIDS or breast cancer) and would totally ignore less-known killers.

I have proposed the solution for prescription drugs that we regulate the amount drug companies who manufacture in the US charge for drugs shipped overseas.  I think the solution of importing Canadian drugs would be a failure because once importing becomes a problem profit-wise, all drug companies have to do is raise Canadian prices to American prices or stop shipping over there altogether.

And these are just the problems involved with the drug issue, much less all the other components of health care.  Tough, tough issue.  Maybe I'll get back to you in a while when I'm figured a solid solution that I think could work.   

But I suspect it's probably not a system headed towards the way this country's health care system is headed, I know that.

[Sam Spade]

1.  i find that hard to believe.  most people with an *adequate* health care plan are paying out the ass for it (or are lucky enough to have generous employers)

It could well happen.  One of the simple facts that I've noticed about life is that more people pay attention to the ridiculousness of their electricity bill or of gas prices than they do to the deductions made out of their paycheck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That still doesn't answer the question of whether they would be spending as much on research or doing as much research.  I should bring up the fact that the one thing that passed from Hillarycare in 1994 dealt with the drug companies.  In a couple of years, the number of drug companies in the US went from the 100s to around 6 or 7 (as I recall).  I'll leave you to look up what it was. 

I would also raise my alternative example.  A largely government-run drug conglomerate which would tend to focuse on "politicized" diseases, but totally ignores less-politicized ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough.