I've come to realize that the newer buzzword seems to be "Universal Coverage" instead of "Socialized Medicine". The plans that I read about seem to want to construct a government mandated system that incorporates all the HMOs and insurance companies.
I think this is wrong. One of the problems with our system is that it's got too many fingers in the pie. I'm in favor of a single payer, British style system or else keeping the present free for all we have now. I think the Democrats, who are the most likely to be in favor of a big government program like this, are too afraid to take on the powerful lobbies of HMOs and Insurance companies.
If we come up with a hybrid system like is being proposed, we are in for even more regulatory confusion and mess than we are even seeing now.
I think a single payer, government run socialized system is the best option. I also think that there must be strict tort reform that goes along with it to protect healthcare providers from frivilous lawsuits.
I wouldn't suggest revolution, just a return to the Federal model of our Constitution. State and locals are more responsive because they are more local. THE MORE LOCAL you make the implementation of a program, the more responsive it must be. It is the difference between depending upon 25,000 votes to win election and 2 million.
Those 25,000 votes matter oh so much more.
This is why progressive hate the concept of anything short of Federal administration. They know that Washington isn't responsive to the people. They count on it.
Progressives are very afraid of having their ideas held accountable to the people. This was directly said in the recent thread about poverty being bad for your health. Somebody directly said that it must be federal because they didn't TRUST the people to make the right decisions. Exactly.
The idea of remoteness to Washington is designed to get 'we the people' as far out of the process as possible. After all, we're all a bunch of idiots. If we weren't, we wouldn't need Washington watching over us, in the first place. Right?
~faith,
Timothy.
The capitol had to be somewhere, I bet you wish it was in the republic of Texas. I am probably way to unintelligent to grasp all this conspiracy theory stuff, I'll just stick with my sheeple.
Are you kidding? I love my country greatly. What a great idea! Our Constitutional form of government made us the World's Best and the most envied.
Apparently, unlike you, I don't define my nation by its government. We are the great nation we are because we made our government small. To the extent we still are a great nation, it is not because of your Congressman. No. It's because of the little guy struggling and living IN SPITE of the squeeze being placed on him by Washington.
I love my country. Government is the problem. A free people have always been the solution.
You asked the wrong question. Is there anything about the government I like? No, not much. Why not? Because I love my country. I stand in good historical company.
~faith,
Timothy.
OOO, OOO, I have an idea! Why don't all the state's secede from the nation, we become 51 seperate nations? No more Federal Monster.
Ah, Timothy , there we go again, we are WAY off topic, are we talking about socialized healthcare anymore,I'm guilty too, why does this debate ALWAYS get sucked into the same quagmire ?
The capitol had to be somewhere, I bet you wish it was in the republic of Texas. I am probably way to unintelligent to grasp all this conspiracy theory stuff, I'll just stick with my sheeple.
I haven't stated any conspiracy theories.
I am just advocating in favor of our rule of law. Look at the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, part of YOUR Bill of Rights. It is a succinct expression of local governance:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution delegates certain, LIMITED powers to the Federal government and specifically reserves all others to the States and the people, individually.
OOO, OOO, I have an idea! Why don't all the state's secede from the nation, we become 51 seperate nations? No more Federal Monster.
Ah, Timothy , there you go again, we are WAY off topic, are we talking about socialized healthcare anymore,I'm guilty too, why does this debate ALWAYS get sucked into the same quagmire ?
It's at the heart of the issue of socialized medicine. You want to put my care in the hands of the Federal monster but yet, that monster is off limits to the discussion?
Let's DO have a Federal government, but let's create a governing document that strictly defines what it can and can't do. We could call it a Constitution, or something like that.
Baaaa, baaaa, Im going to go to that green meadow yonder, graze with my friends the sheeple.
I don't recall ever calling you a 'sheeple'. In fact, I disagree with the notion that our citizens need government shepherding. I disagree that Americans are 'sheeple'.
We are more capable, individually, than our government would give us credit.
That, I think, is my general point.
More to the point, I don't disagree with most of your IDEAS. I disagree with how you would implement your ideas. I do so only because you will not get what you want by the methods you propose. For example, I stipulate that people should have routine and comprehensive access to quality care. I disagree with the method you propose because it would remove 'routine, comprehensive, AND quality' from that equation.
As usual Tim, you've make some great points... but you say things rather brashly and at times come across as outright insulting to others' views... play nice, won't you? Your perspective is useful in such discussions.
Back to the topic, I don't see that HSAs are much of an answer. It seems that pretty much only the wealthy and financially saavy would ever realize any significant savings given the amount of hassle.
I like the idea of reducing the whole third-party payor system but is it possible given how much insurance companies are invested in the system? It honestly seems like it might be easier to just toss it completely for a single payor system than to just try to dismantle it without that drastic change. Why? It seems it might be easier to get popular support to outweight insurance company lobbying if a single payor system were being considered than to get popular support to outweight insurance company lobbying to dismantle health insurance as we know it today. I'd think it'd be easier to garner support for a something new (to replace what's broken) than to just get rid of something already there that supposedly helps cover our health care costs.
On a general note...
It seems we all fear or blame big bad corporations or big bad government. Neither are inherently evil or manifestly benificent. We could probably come up with some better health care solution using either a private model or a public model, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, each with areas of "unfairness"... after all, what in life can ever always be considered truly fair by all parties?
So let's talk about different potential plans of improving the affordability and accessibility of health care and not about big bad corporations or big bad government screwing everything up. There are pros and cons and risks to every possibility, but none are likely to be sole cause of the downfall of civil society as we know it. We've fumbled along as a society this far and let's have some faith that we'll continue to fumble along even when we take misteps this way or that.
As usual Tim, you've make some great points... but you say things rather brashly and at times come across as outright insulting to others' views... play nice, won't you? Your perspective is useful in such discussions.
I take it back. Maybe I have been more brash than normal. My apologies.
I think this thread is circling the drain...will keep open for next 24 hours for final comments then closing.
There are almost always 2-3 threads ongoing on this topic. If not, they are created. This discussion has been ongoing, across multiple threads, for a very long time. Probably, since Brian began this site.
If you close this thread, the same ideas will just migrate to the next 'won't it be great when the government provides all our care' thread. I see no benefit in closing this thread when several more will be opened, today.
There are plenty such threads that I do not participate in. Purposely.
The debate on this idea should have its own forum. Ever since y'all did that with the ADN/BSN debate, THIS DEBATE has taken over as the late, great, 'drain circling' debate. I'm certainly not criticizing the moderating. I love you guys. I'm just suggesting that the parallel is the ADN/BSN debate. This debate, by definition, is and will be passionate. And, these days, it's everywhere.
Taking JJJoy's advice, I cleaned up several of my posts.
I like the comment that someone made back a few pages that healthcare should be thought of as the same importance as roads, bridges, and other infrastructure that the government funds. The health of individuals is important for society as a whole, since we are all interlocking and interdependent parts of humanity.
Simplepleasures
1,355 Posts