National Healthcare System?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:19:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  National Healthcare System?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: National Healthcare System?  (Read 18465 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: June 01, 2004, 11:40:35 PM »

This is very interesting! I like muon2's idea quite a lot, although Ford and States have good points as well. Which brings me to my main point...

Why, with all these good ideas about health care floating around - and all from Republicans, at that - are we continually locked in a debate between the left-wing 'Single-Payer Canadian System NOW!' and the right-wing 'NO To Socialized Medicine!' positions?!

What's up with this, anyway? There's more clever fixes in this thread than have been produced by the last fifty years of Congressional and Presidential debate! Why can't America settle this issue?
-a perplexed WMS Huh
We've forgotten to let the states be the laboratories of our representative democracy. The national media will naturally focus on national solutions, creating a polarized view. Historically many good ideas bubble up from the states when the media was driven at that level (primarily through the newspapers.)
Logged
classical liberal
RightWingNut
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,758


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2004, 09:09:14 AM »

Healthcare is NOT a "right".

HHS is unconstitutional.

Darwinism baby!
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2004, 04:39:27 PM »

Healthcare is NOT a "right".

HHS is unconstitutional.

Darwinism baby!
Yeah! And protection by military and police forces is not a "right".

Defend yourself you loser!
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2004, 05:13:37 PM »

helthcare needs to be given to everyone.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2004, 11:21:26 PM »

Healthcare is NOT a "right".

HHS is unconstitutional.

Darwinism baby!
Yeah! And protection by military and police forces is not a "right".

Defend yourself you loser!

RWN - Don't confuse rights (speech, arms, trials, etc.) eith government functions. The Bill of Rights restricts government to protect the basic liberties of our nation. The function of government is to provide services and are established by the framework of the Constitution that predates the Bill of Rights.

Defense is clearly a service provided by the government. The regulation of interstate commerce is vague but also constitutional. State and local jurisdictions also have mandates to provide certain services that may be enshrined in stae constitutions and statutes. In IL all localities are REQUIRED to protect the health, safety and welfare of their residents by passing appropriate ordinances. Needless to say, it is difficult to balance this mandate for services against the preservation of rights.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2004, 12:02:56 AM »

This is very interesting! I like muon2's idea quite a lot, although Ford and States have good points as well. Which brings me to my main point...

Why, with all these good ideas about health care floating around - and all from Republicans, at that - are we continually locked in a debate between the left-wing 'Single-Payer Canadian System NOW!' and the right-wing 'NO To Socialized Medicine!' positions?!

What's up with this, anyway? There's more clever fixes in this thread than have been produced by the last fifty years of Congressional and Presidential debate! Why can't America settle this issue?
-a perplexed WMS Huh
We've forgotten to let the states be the laboratories of our representative democracy. The national media will naturally focus on national solutions, creating a polarized view. Historically many good ideas bubble up from the states when the media was driven at that level (primarily through the newspapers.)

Excellent points! It's amazing how much more federalist I've become as I've gotten older... Wink
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2004, 02:17:41 PM »

If "nationalized health care" only meant the federal government (i.e., all US taxpayers) picking up the tab for routine visits to the general practitioner, then "nationalized health care" wouldn't be so threatning.

Invariably, though, "national health care" degenerates to some disgusting scheme whereby the federal goverment creates lists of 'covered disabilities', 'officially-sanctioned drugs and treatments', 'approved healthcare facilities', 'income-adjusted coverage', etc. The mere thought of it makes my flesh creep.  
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2004, 09:58:07 PM »

helthcare needs to be given to everyone.

So doctors will simply be slaves to the rest of the population?  Interesting system.
Logged
pieman
Rookie
**
Posts: 141


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2004, 07:03:08 PM »

The marketplace always finds the most profitable solutions. If we make value based healthcare profitable, it will flourish.

We can return to value based healthcare by putting the patient (with good medical advice) back in the position of making the choices.

Encouraging High-deductible insurance in combination with 401K-like medical savings accounts would allow the marketplace to work to encourage value based decision making.


 
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2004, 10:10:03 PM »

The marketplace always finds the most profitable solutions. If we make value based healthcare profitable, it will flourish.

We can return to value based healthcare by putting the patient (with good medical advice) back in the position of making the choices.

Encouraging High-deductible insurance in combination with 401K-like medical savings accounts would allow the marketplace to work to encourage value based decision making.


 
Those are excellent points, but who pays for the insurance?

I believe that a system where the employers pay is hopelessly outdated and fails a market-based test. Leaving it to each individual may sound resoanble, but also fails the market since public expectations do not allow the market to act with full knowledge on behalf of both buyer and seller. This causes a market failure here as well.

For me that leave a government entitiy to purchase insurance. Personally, I'd like to keep that as local as possible, with the only national mandate to be for portability from state to state.
Logged
pieman
Rookie
**
Posts: 141


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2004, 10:51:35 PM »

Public expectations will quickly adapt, if give the opportunity.

I am always leary of placing the government in control. Although I am not a big fan of insurance companies, at least the government can step in when needed to tweak the system. If we give control to the government, we will NEVER get it back.

Having somebody else pay the premiums just creates another layer of bureacracy. We have to face the fact that healthcare is not cheap and we have to pay for it, either directly or indirectly.

If we pay for it directly, each individual gets to choose how much we pay and how much healthcare we get.  

If we let the government pay, the government gets to decide how much YOU will pay and how much healthcare YOU will get.

There is no free lunch. Our only hope in reduce the overall cost that everyone has to pay is to support a system that encourages value choices. What we have now or a gov't paid program does not encourage value choices.
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2004, 08:38:59 AM »

No to any government interference in health care.

Yes!  I couldn't agree more.


you're a bunch of tightwads.  I have to admit that I am too.  With the possible exception of federally subsidized abortions for the very poor (which would save us billions on all the WIC, welfare, clothing, high school textbooks, etc., for an unwanted child) I think the government should not be grown large enough to muck around in health care.  

And yes, we wouldn't even need that if the government had completely stayed out of this business.  Kemperor points out in a subsequent post that until a couple of decades ago (more like four, actually) we began an experiment in federal involvement which has artificially grown the price of all aspects of health care.

Solution:  Fire every one in the department of Health and Human Services.  Legalize ALL drugs and let me decide which ones I need, whether for therapy or recreation.  And otherwise keep your government on a short leash.
Angus. This post bother me. It seems very immoral and selfish to me. I thought that you would been such great humanist, but it seems that I was wrong.

I have a question to all your guys who are against any public healthcare. What you would do for poor people (or poor CHILDREN) who have serious illness like cancer, heart disease or AIDS? You just let them die?

But I'm glad that I can agree with many Republicans here. Statesrights, Ford and Muon have done many excellent points. In fact you are like most European conservatives. *considering blue Avatar*  


Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2004, 09:43:13 AM »

Huck, IMHO all people (except those who have committed murder) have the right to live. Cancer is a terrible disease and I know the costs involved are through the roof. To deny a person treatment for it is a violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property(Me-I'm using the original phrase here)". It can cost over 3000 dollars a MONTH for cancer fighting pills. My insurance company no longer covers such drugs. I know now that if I get cancer I am as good as dead.
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2004, 04:33:03 PM »

Huck, IMHO all people (except those who have committed murder) have the right to live. Cancer is a terrible disease and I know the costs involved are through the roof. To deny a person treatment for it is a violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property(Me-I'm using the original phrase here)". It can cost over 3000 dollars a MONTH for cancer fighting pills. My insurance company no longer covers such drugs. I know now that if I get cancer I am as good as dead.
Is there any public healthcare in America in such cases? If answer is no...I have no words. It would be against Christianity and all decency. America is world's richest country after all.

Or how much there is charity helping people in this kind of cases?

I see this is very good reason vote for Democrats. Maybe you should do so until this problem is solved.
Logged
Beaver
Rookie
**
Posts: 107


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2004, 06:40:47 PM »

Canada is a perfect example of a universal healthcare system gone to hell. We rushed into it too soon. I like the idea of socialised medicine, but my government has bungled it badly.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2004, 07:31:29 PM »

Huck, IMHO all people (except those who have committed murder) have the right to live. Cancer is a terrible disease and I know the costs involved are through the roof. To deny a person treatment for it is a violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property(Me-I'm using the original phrase here)". It can cost over 3000 dollars a MONTH for cancer fighting pills. My insurance company no longer covers such drugs. I know now that if I get cancer I am as good as dead.
Is there any public healthcare in America in such cases? If answer is no...I have no words. It would be against Christianity and all decency. America is world's richest country after all.

Or how much there is charity helping people in this kind of cases?

I see this is very good reason vote for Democrats. Maybe you should do so until this problem is solved.

The Democrats had 8 years in the whitehouse and did nothing recognizable to help healthcare. Bush has done more. The problem is congress is so deadlocked nothing, except pork spending is getting done. Everyones health plan is different. I am just using mine as a example. I would never vote for Kerry as I strongly fear what his advancement of social issues would do for this country.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2004, 11:41:29 PM »

Public expectations will quickly adapt, if give the opportunity.

I am always leary of placing the government in control. Although I am not a big fan of insurance companies, at least the government can step in when needed to tweak the system. If we give control to the government, we will NEVER get it back.

Having somebody else pay the premiums just creates another layer of bureacracy. We have to face the fact that healthcare is not cheap and we have to pay for it, either directly or indirectly.

If we pay for it directly, each individual gets to choose how much we pay and how much healthcare we get.  

If we let the government pay, the government gets to decide how much YOU will pay and how much healthcare YOU will get.

There is no free lunch. Our only hope in reduce the overall cost that everyone has to pay is to support a system that encourages value choices. What we have now or a gov't paid program does not encourage value choices.
I'd love to agree with you, but we are already paying the premiums indirectly. The problem is that the indirect payers are a hopeless hodgepodge. Sometimes it's the government (Medicare, Medicaid, other state programs), often it is business as the employer (which can be the government). Very rarely is there a direct payer involved anymore.
Logged
Lilman
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 08, 2004, 07:11:02 PM »

If they want healthcare then get a damn job.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2004, 10:35:11 PM »

What is everyones idea for a Healthcare system? Here is my idea :

a) If you have insurance your insurance company would be required to pay 80/20 automatically. On top of that the govt would pay 50% of your 20%. For example if your medical bill was 100$ the insurance company would pay 80 dollars, the govt 10 and you pay 10. Medicines would be 90% covered by the govt with 10% owed by the patient.

b) No Insurance to government would pay 80%. Medicine would be covered fully.

c) Dental and Vision would be 90% covered.

With this hypothetical system I think fraud could be kept to a minimum, because I think 100% coverage for all Americans would create cases of fraud and would probably bankrupt the system over time. I would also set a standard insurance payment to keep insurance companies from rising their costs to astronomical numbers. I see this as a good compromise to all or none. Please feel free to add or tear this idea apart as necessary. I am curious as to what everyone thinks.

It is pretty good. However, REALISTICALLY, the only way we can afford it is if taxes are rolled back to the Clinton levels or taxes on business and the wealthy go up.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2004, 10:40:19 PM »

What is everyones idea for a Healthcare system? Here is my idea :

a) If you have insurance your insurance company would be required to pay 80/20 automatically. On top of that the govt would pay 50% of your 20%. For example if your medical bill was 100$ the insurance company would pay 80 dollars, the govt 10 and you pay 10. Medicines would be 90% covered by the govt with 10% owed by the patient.

b) No Insurance to government would pay 80%. Medicine would be covered fully.

c) Dental and Vision would be 90% covered.

With this hypothetical system I think fraud could be kept to a minimum, because I think 100% coverage for all Americans would create cases of fraud and would probably bankrupt the system over time. I would also set a standard insurance payment to keep insurance companies from rising their costs to astronomical numbers. I see this as a good compromise to all or none. Please feel free to add or tear this idea apart as necessary. I am curious as to what everyone thinks.

It is pretty good. However, REALISTICALLY, the only way we can afford it is if taxes are rolled back to the Clinton levels or taxes on business and the wealthy go up.

The problem is not the lack of money but the distribution of it that they have. Eliminate the IRS but still have income taxes on business (which is constitutional) and have a sales tax. Make the government penny pinch for once.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: June 23, 2004, 10:44:03 PM »

No tax increase is necessary.  If you grow the economy and constrain spending increases in existing departments at or below the rate of inflation, the budget will take care of itself.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 23, 2004, 10:51:05 PM »

Also put into consideration that Medicare would be eliminated and the funds from that would fund this.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2004, 12:48:38 AM »

What is everyones idea for a Healthcare system? Here is my idea :

a) If you have insurance your insurance company would be required to pay 80/20 automatically. On top of that the govt would pay 50% of your 20%. For example if your medical bill was 100$ the insurance company would pay 80 dollars, the govt 10 and you pay 10. Medicines would be 90% covered by the govt with 10% owed by the patient.

b) No Insurance to government would pay 80%. Medicine would be covered fully.

c) Dental and Vision would be 90% covered.

With this hypothetical system I think fraud could be kept to a minimum, because I think 100% coverage for all Americans would create cases of fraud and would probably bankrupt the system over time. I would also set a standard insurance payment to keep insurance companies from rising their costs to astronomical numbers. I see this as a good compromise to all or none. Please feel free to add or tear this idea apart as necessary. I am curious as to what everyone thinks.

It is pretty good. However, REALISTICALLY, the only way we can afford it is if taxes are rolled back to the Clinton levels or taxes on business and the wealthy go up.

If healthcare is no longer an expected benefit of a job, then businesses will see substantial savings in labor costs. It isn't unreasonable that part of that savings go to fund state/local healthcare systems. The remainder of the savings will improve competiveness in the global economy.
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2004, 04:23:01 PM »

Huck, IMHO all people (except those who have committed murder) have the right to live. Cancer is a terrible disease and I know the costs involved are through the roof. To deny a person treatment for it is a violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property(Me-I'm using the original phrase here)". It can cost over 3000 dollars a MONTH for cancer fighting pills. My insurance company no longer covers such drugs. I know now that if I get cancer I am as good as dead.
Is there any public healthcare in America in such cases? If answer is no...I have no words. It would be against Christianity and all decency. America is world's richest country after all.

Or how much there is charity helping people in this kind of cases?
Bumb!

Any answers?
 
What kind public healhcare you can get in USA if you were very poor and haven't insurance?

The cancer, heart disease, Aids? Who would help you?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2004, 04:25:29 PM »

Huck, IMHO all people (except those who have committed murder) have the right to live. Cancer is a terrible disease and I know the costs involved are through the roof. To deny a person treatment for it is a violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property(Me-I'm using the original phrase here)". It can cost over 3000 dollars a MONTH for cancer fighting pills. My insurance company no longer covers such drugs. I know now that if I get cancer I am as good as dead.
Is there any public healthcare in America in such cases? If answer is no...I have no words. It would be against Christianity and all decency. America is world's richest country after all.

Or how much there is charity helping people in this kind of cases?
Bumb!

Any answers?
 
What kind public healhcare you can get in USA if you were very poor and haven't insurance?

The cancer, heart disease, Aids? Who would help you?

If you are very poor you can get medicaid. Usually making under 25k a year. Some organizations do help but I believe these groups are mostly aimed at children.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 11 queries.