Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's - page 31

... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    First of all some of us aren't proponents for "government restricted healthcare", just the government as a payment source.
    It's the same thing.

    Once the gov't is the only allowed payment source, they have an effective monopoly, regardless whether other parts of the system remain in private hands.

    And, once Uncle Daddy becomes the only payor, the laws of economics will still demand that the unlimited demand on healthcare (because somebody else is paying for it) will either need unlimited supply (impossible) or rationing and restriction of care. The inevitable result is gov't restricted healthcare.

    I understand that you think that being the only payor is different from "owning" the system. It isn't.

    He who pays for something, owns it.

    More important, he who has a monopoly on payment gets to dictate whatever terms he wants to both his suppliers and his customers.

    How is it that a monopoly is always bad, unless we put it into the hands of the most incompetent source, and then its good?

    Oh, btw, I waited 3 hrs at the Social Security office to get a replacement card for my 17 yr old last week. Why did I wait 3 hrs? Because after every customer called, the gov't agent for replacement cards pulled her window shut for 15 minutes. 2 customers an hour. Why? She's a gov't employee; she doesn't get paid based on customer satisfaction, now, does she?

    As far as those that can pay over and above the system. Yes, you are right, but being forced to pay FOR the system will sap too much from too many to do so. For example, the child abuse of sending your child to a government school is necessary for so many BECAUSE of the confiscatory rates the gov't charges in taxes in order to pay for those schools. By sucking up all the resources, the gov't effectively stifles competition.

    And, I disagree with you that the provision of healthcare is a right. The opportunity to freely engage in the healthcare services is the right, and the gov't taking that right from you, by fiat or gunpoint; that is the wrong. We fought wars to convince the gov't to keep its dirty hands off our rights. When the gov't exercises your rights FOR you, that is not the provision of your rights; it's the imposition of them.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jul 2, '07
  2. by   fronkey bean
    Quote from hm2viking
    access to healthcare is neither a conservative or a liberal issue. its a human rights issue for all.

    there are enough correlations out there between poor health status and lack of educational achievement, use of public welfare systems, underemployment, and entrance into the correctional system to say that doing nothing is too expensive for our society. its not that progressives are trying to achieve absolute equality of results for everyone rather the more accurate goal of progressivism is to reduce barriers to achievement (whether it is educational, health etc.) so that all people in society have the opportunity to achieve to the extent of their individual ability and drive.
    i thought we had already decided that there is access to healthcare for everyone in the us - not equal access at times but access none the less.
  3. by   vashtee
    I'm not sure it was mentioned in all these pages, but although the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th for overall health care systems, it placed number ONE for patient satisfaction.

    Yes, we have problems, but clearly we are doing something right, too.
  4. by   Tweety
    Quote from natania
    I'm not sure it was mentioned in all these pages, but although the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th for overall health care systems, it placed number ONE for patient satisfaction.

    Yes, we have problems, but clearly we are doing something right, too.
    Absolutely there is much to be proud of in our current health care system. And yes, if you polled Americans most are satisfied with the status quo. If I take only myself and my experiences with the health care system (which is limited due to excellent health) I personally am satisfied as well.
  5. by   Tweety
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    It's the same thing.

    Once the gov't is the only allowed payment source, they have an effective monopoly, regardless whether other parts of the system remain in private hands.

    And, once Uncle Daddy becomes the only payor, the laws of economics will still demand that the unlimited demand on healthcare (because somebody else is paying for it) will either need unlimited supply (impossible) or rationing and restriction of care. The inevitable result is gov't restricted healthcare.

    I understand that you think that being the only payor is different from "owning" the system. It isn't.

    He who pays for something, owns it.

    More important, he who has a monopoly on payment gets to dictate whatever terms he wants to both his suppliers and his customers.

    How is it that a monopoly is always bad, unless we put it into the hands of the most incompetent source, and then its good?

    Oh, btw, I waited 3 hrs at the Social Security office to get a replacement card for my 17 yr old last week. Why did I wait 3 hrs? Because after every customer called, the gov't agent for replacement cards pulled her window shut for 15 minutes. 2 customers an hour. Why? She's a gov't employee; she doesn't get paid based on customer satisfaction, now, does she?

    As far as those that can pay over and above the system. Yes, you are right, but being forced to pay FOR the system will sap too much from too many to do so. For example, the child abuse of sending your child to a government school is necessary for so many BECAUSE of the confiscatory rates the gov't charges in taxes in order to pay for those schools. By sucking up all the resources, the gov't effectively stifles competition.

    And, I disagree with you that the provision of healthcare is a right. The opportunity to freely engage in the healthcare services is the right, and the gov't taking that right from you, by fiat or gunpoint; that is the wrong. We fought wars to convince the gov't to keep its dirty hands off our rights. When the gov't exercises your rights FOR you, that is not the provision of your rights; it's the imposition of them.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    First I'll address the last part. I never really said that health care was a right. I think that in an wealthy/advanced society such as America, health care should be a priviledge, the same as education for all is. Not that it's a basic human right, but for Americans, we can do it.

    Your other points are well taken. I think there should be provisions built into UHC that would not allow the government to own the health care system. Thus you and I would not become government employees.

    One doesn't have a choice where we go to get our mail or a social security card. But I'd like to think that my doctor would not be a government employee and that if I'm unsatisfied, I would still have some choice and go to another doctor. I'd like to think that the current system of doctors choosing where their patients go would last through UHC, i.e. if poor customer service is being given at Hospital A, then he's going to put his patients in Hospittal B.

    I'm still not buying 100% into the idea that we're all going to become government employees just because they government pays the insurance premiums/medical bills for us. Obviously it's all speculation on both our parts.

    I feel your pain in getting your social security card. Stuff like that is maddening.
  6. by   fergus51
    Quote from Tweety
    \One doesn't have a choice where we go to get our mail or a social security card. But I'd like to think that my doctor would not be a government employee and that if I'm unsatisfied, I would still have some choice and go to another doctor. I'd like to think that the current system of doctors choosing where their patients go would last through UHC, i.e. if poor customer service is being given at Hospital A, then he's going to put his patients in Hospittal B.
    .
    Thank you. I've worked in Canada obviously and believe me, you wouldn't survive as a nurse if patients were complaining about you. Managers still care about patient satisfaction because patients can go to ANY hospital they want.
  7. by   Tweety
    Quote from fergus51
    Thank you. I've worked in Canada obviously and believe me, you wouldn't survive as a nurse if patients were complaining about you. Managers still care about patient satisfaction because patients can go to ANY hospital they want.
    Interesting. I guess when you take out the limitations of HMO's etc that say "you have to go here or we don't pay" and can go anywhere because it will get paid for, then customer service indeed would be an issue. Thanks!
  8. by   fronkey bean
    Quote from fergus51
    Thank you. I've worked in Canada obviously and believe me, you wouldn't survive as a nurse if patients were complaining about you. Managers still care about patient satisfaction because patients can go to ANY hospital they want.
    Do you know if anyone has done a comparative study of the two systems for things like ease of use, pt satisfaction, wait times, cost (in taxes or premiums), pt outcomes, worker satisfaction, etc.? A reasonably unbiased study that doesn't involve MM or Ann Coulter, etc.
  9. by   Tweety
    Quote from fronkey bean
    Do you know if anyone has done a comparative study of the two systems for things like ease of use, pt satisfaction, wait times, cost (in taxes or premiums), pt outcomes, worker satisfaction, etc.? A reasonably unbiased study that doesn't involve MM or Ann Coulter, etc.
    It's well docuemented that the underinsured and poor have poorer outcomes, but such a comparison would be interesting to read. I wonder if it would include only insured people, or both the uninsured/poor, etc. persons as well. There's obviously two systems here.
  10. by   teeituptom
    Quote from kenny b
    Yes, that's a good point.
    I think all of this discussion boils down to some simple facts.
    Government officials are, by-and-large pretty well insulated from accountability much of the time. And when they are held accountable, it is usually after they've already stolen or wasted huge amounts of the kinds of resources we need to address the issues we're discussing here. Voting isn't currently a very effective way to hold people accountable.

    The hospital and pharmaceutical CEOs are similarly insulated. They are only accountable to a slightly lesser degree because of competition. However, the leveling effects of competition are weaker than many of us would like to believe because of limited choice in many cases (not exactly the kind of raw competition you get between pepsi and coke when they're both on the shelf in front of you).

    I want to help the most people in the best way. The hard part of that to swallow is that there ARE limited resources. In order to do the most good, we have to warm up to the fact that we may have to forgo a finger attachment in order to save resources for other, more important things. This may sound cold, but it feels compassionate to me.

    This country is
    dollars in debt to real people and real countries. And yes I know President Bush contributed to this, but I also know President Clinton did too, and so on and so on. And no, balancing a budget by taxing folks out of the desire to make more money doesn't remedy the problem. And yes there are other areas we could cut (without a doubt).

    This debt curve goes vertical because of un-payable interest at some point.

    We are not the riches country in the world in terms of monetary wealth anymore. That wealth is imaginary.

    When the debt curve goes vertical, the only way to pay it will be by devaluing the money. Then our children will have much more to worry about than universal health care.

    Sorry for going off-topic, but it all seems related to me somehow (of course I just got off of 4 consecutive 12-hour night shifts).
    Actually Clinton had built up a large Surplus. Which Bushie blew and then some.
  11. by   teeituptom
    Quote from Tweety
    Absolutely there is much to be proud of in our current health care system. And yes, if you polled Americans most are satisfied with the status quo. If I take only myself and my experiences with the health care system (which is limited due to excellent health) I personally am satisfied as well.
    Satisfied or afraid of change. Curious minds want to know.
  12. by   teeituptom
    Quote from Tweety
    It's well docuemented that the underinsured and poor have poorer outcomes, but such a comparison would be interesting to read. I wonder if it would include only insured people, or both the uninsured/poor, etc. persons as well. There's obviously two systems here.
    There are at least 2 systems in place. But there should not be a difference in the outcomes of care. That is illegal, immoral, and unfair.
    This is what causes there to be a drive renewed for Universal Health Care.
  13. by   vashtee
    Quote from teeituptom
    Satisfied or afraid of change. Curious minds want to know.
    The World Health Organization says "patient satisfaction". I realize I am only a single person, but I LOVE our family physicians, and so I suppose I would be a *little bit* afraid of losing them due to a system change.

close