[jjjoy]

I appreciate your perspective, Dave, and you make some valid points. However, I don't think laser eye surgery is a good reflection of how the market would work for other health care services. LASIK is purely elective, low risk, and requires only a small amount of manpower per case. Not only is a positive outcome most likely, but LASIK provides an immediately rewarding benefit... better vision now! That is very different than pricey meds that statistically lower one's chances of a disease (that they may still get or may never have gotten) or a pricey diagnostic test that may indicate bad news and the need for even more expensive services.

I agree that the way health insurance has developed has been problematic and contributed to increased costs. But I don't see that that's due to a lack of free market. It seems like insurance companies were trying to compete with single entity HMOs (like Kaiser) by offering similar "full service" policies by patching together negotiated contracts with physician groups, hospitals, & other health care services so that they could engage in bulk contracting. Employees preferred having more choices than traditional HMOs and these new policies offered more choice with similar benefits to an HMO for just a little bit more money. Individual providers couldn't compete with the lower prices these groups could negotiate, so they had to sign on. Employees loved the lower out of pocket costs & businesses had no reason not to offer such plans. Health insurance companies profitted from the ability to lower costs through the bulk contracts. But providers ended up being squeezed on all sides... if you don't accept the paltry reimbursement rate then you don't get the patients and you get nothing...

Doesn't free market play a role there? Private insurance companies have a right to build provider networks and engage in bulk negotiating, right? And health care providers have the right to increase their prices in an attempt to recoup other losses? Should the government have stepped in to 'protect' physicians, hospitals, & patients etc from the price wars that this type of system seems to perpetuate?

I can see the argument that that's exactly what Medicare does and what universal care would do. Except that I don't see any reason why private health insurance companies should get the same kind of benefits in order to reduce costs. At least with Medicare, and UHC, the savings from decreased costs go back into health care. And with UHC of some sort, I wouldn't have to live in fear of an illness driving me into bankruptcy.

[_Dave_]

touche joy. It's a very complex issue. I just feel that more government involvement could easily lead to more mess and more wasted $$$.

[_Dave_]

Originally Posted by carlos811

I'm sorry, this is same LAME argument we been hearing forever. Do you know where we would be at right now if it wasnt for the New Deal? You can argue all you want about how social security and how its bankrupt, but this wouldnt be the case if the "Conservatives" hadn't DEvalued the dollar like they have by waging the most ridiculous and totally UNnessesary war and raising fuel prices. Universal healthcare will put doctors and nurses who care about TREATING people, where they want to be. and get providers who care more about profit...OUT. Personally i dont want to be treated by somone who doesnt genuienly care about patients.
thanks.

On an unrelated note:
Don't attack ALL conservatives for this "unneccesary" war. Real conservatives are against the war. In the past, conservatives are the ones that end wars (exe. Korea and Vietnam). Just because GWB/Cheney have fooled/scared many into supporting it, doesn't mean ALL conservatives are for the war. I am very conservative, and very against the war. Enough about the war lies, that should be another post.

devaluation of the dollar and Social Security:
The dollar was being devalued well before the war in iraq (although its definately been happening more rapidly since the war.) Its been going on for many years now (since the end of the gold-standard, and the introduction of our fiat currency). The devaulation of the dollar is the result of both "dem's" and "republican's" irresponsibility. The bankrupting of social security began in '65 when L.B. Johnson (democrat) took social security from its own seperate trust fund and put it into the general fund so that it could be more easily spent.

The real problem with social security lies in population distribution. Back when SS was created, the working-age generation outnumbered the elderly generation dramaticly. There were several times more people paying in than were drawing out. Therefore it was sustainable. TODAY, the population distribution is different. There are more elderly, and less working-age compared with the 1950-60s. This results in a less-sustainable, if not completely un-sustainable system.

BTW:
The war doesn't directly raise the price of fuel. It raises the price of all commodities (fuel, milk, eggs, gold, soybeans, etc) by further devaluing the dollar. (where do we import oil from? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html ) We get most of our oil from the Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico, not iraq, so the occupation of iraq does not directly raise the price of fuel. Indirectly yes, through the rediculous amount of federal reserve notes we print to stay in iraq. That is what is killing the dollar, making the cost of oil and other commodities (in dollars, not in actual value) go up.

Now to respond to your post:
Universal health care will put doctors and nurses who care about TREATING people at the mercy of the Federal government. The government will set your hours, how much you will make, what your working conditions are, who you will treat, and what your pt's treatment options will be (based on the rationing of care for cost effectiveness). Surely, this will result in less doctors and nurses who are satisfied with their jobs. Yeah, they could leave and go work in the private sector, but there wouldn't be much of a private sector to work in because the government would control a large majority of the market. Or even worse, it could be like Quebec where private health care is illegal b/c it "undermines the national system" I don't have a problem with my doctor or my nurse getting paid at market value for their services. Its only fair that they are making a profit for their hard work and for the years they spent training for their career.

Sorry if this is another "LAME argument". Makes sense to me though.

[dthfytr]

My view is somewhat simpler, but very cynical.

The insurance companies are entitled to make a profit over and above their costs. A healthy population would incur less costs, hence a smaller profit.

The more sickness there is, the higher the costs to the insurance companies, and a higher profit.

For this reason I believe that a system that encourages good health care, and removes the profit incentive from the insurance companies is what we need.

[CO2emission]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

With the government meeting ALL YOUR NEEDS, however, there is no motivation to do more. THAT is the chief flaw in socialism. WHO is going to provide all these services once nobody has to work anymore?

THERE is NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to the services of others.

~faith,
Timothy.

Where on earth did you get this ideology from? The Scandinavian countries are the benchmarks for liberal socialism and their people don't seem to be lying around chewing straws. Perhaps some studies in political or social science may be of assistance. The underclass are birthed and perpetuated by the economic parasites of the "freemarket". These parasites bloat off the labour of others who are then discarded when they no longer satisfy the gluttony of the "freemarket". Then the underclass conveniently become the parasites, unmotivated, unemployed, and the scurge of society. Like somehow they made a choice. Not only are they perceived as having made a conscious choice to not be educated, not have enough food and decent housing, select a journey that led them to drugs and alcohol so that they could feel a bit better about themselves, they are perceived as somehow deserving of their misery.

[manofcare]

Instead of studying Scandanavian countries, lets look a England. It seems to be a model of the socialist idea. It is no longer the empire it once was, and how much of the decline do you think is attributable to the change in politics to a socialist political change.

[herring_RN]

The British were not socialistic when the Americans won the Revolutionary and the War of 1812.
They were not socialistic when they suffered the Blitz b Nazis in WWII.

British nurses now work hard and are very competent. The ones I've worked with have been extremely competent and with one exception charming and friendly.
They benefitted from a "free" education then use that education to care for patients for a lifetime.

One excellent RN I work with attended the Nightingale school.

Doctor Foley was English. We knowhis urinary catheter was quite an invention.

I've cared for patients who benefitted from minimally invasive beating heqrt surgery, including some who did not their sternum sawed apart. The surgery was created and perfected in England. American surgeons went to Englant to learn the techniques for British surgeons.
Yes those cardiac surgeons are innovating whilst working in a socialist system.

[ZippyGBR]

i see the 'liberty' chestnut comes out the irony being of course that the alledged 'land of the free' is one ofthe most restrictive and draconian regimes on the face of the planet... not other country in the world would accept the way in which the US federal government holds states to ransom or the way in which representatives and senators introduce spurious additions to legislation ...

[Woodenpug]

Originally Posted by _Dave_

On an unrelated note:


Now to respond to your post:
Universal health care will put doctors and nurses who care about TREATING people at the mercy of the Federal government. The government will set your hours, how much you will make, what your working conditions are, who you will treat, and what your pt's treatment options will be (based on the rationing of care for cost effectiveness). Surely, this will result in less doctors and nurses who are satisfied with their jobs. Yeah, they could leave and go work in the private sector, but there wouldn't be much of a private sector to work in because the government would control a large majority of the market. Or even worse, it could be like Quebec where private health care is illegal b/c it "undermines the national system" I don't have a problem with my doctor or my nurse getting paid at market value for their services. Its only fair that they are making a profit for their hard work and for the years they spent training for their career.

Sorry if this is another "LAME argument". Makes sense to me though.

It's not lame, just unsupported. The government would have several options to become more cost effective. It is not necessary for a Universal health care system to cut costs by setting hours or wages. Cost savings can be realized by improved preventative medicine and by eliminating unnecessary duplication of services, for example. Why is the straw man argument so popular with those opposed to UHC?

[HM2Viking]

We simply can't afford to continue paying 25% of our health care dollars to private insurance companies for profit and administration. For reasons of efficiency and quality I prefer single payer. If the private insurance companies want to stay in business here is my modest proposal. They get 5% for administration. If they want to make a profit they match traditional medicares administrative fees of 3%. If they are truly more efficient they will get their costs below 3%. Its that simple to reduce health care spending to a sustainable level.