[luke warm]

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual. One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount. If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

[helene_t]

Mike777, the tone in your posts is as if there is a PC mafia that accuses everybody who dares to ask questions about a national health care of having bad ethics, making it impossible to have a serious discussion about this.

I might be misunderstanding you completely, of course.

[mycroft]

There are things that are more effectively done by a monopoly than by the Free Market; and there are things that are better done by a regulated monopoly than by letting the Free Market control.

A good example of the first is something with a large initial infrastructure cost; power grid, water distribution, and so on. It is simply so much cheaper for the established company to provide the good or service that it is infeasible for a new competitor to arise; if there are two parallel distribution systems, it will still likely be cheaper for the consumer to buy out the other company and either use the parallel distribution for more capacity or shut one down and save on the maintenance costs.

The problem with a monopoly is they get to set prices to whatever profit margin they choose. If the good or service is optional, fine, so be it. If you want it, you pay whatever the market will bear. If you don't want it that much, also fine. But when it comes to services deemed essential by society, this no longer applies.

Water. Power. Sewer. Gas heating. Roads. Police and Fire services. Public Education. I'm sure you can think of others.

Some things it actually works best if the State is the monopoly; some things work best if the monopoly is regulated by the State. I will admit that "regulating profit" doesn't work so well, as there's no incentive to reduce costs, but other regulation systems can work. Please note that it is also very possible that a State-owned or State-regulated monopoly will actually be much less efficient than one facing competition; I do realize that the State often fails.

The current health distribution and insurance system in the United States is arguably one of those things that would work more efficiently as a monopoly. Think, at least, of the wasted time and money involved in redundant administration and marketing.

It is arguable that Basic health care is a necessary good as much as Police protection, power and water are. It is arguable that denying access to Basic health care is more costly to society than providing it, as well. If so, the "invisible hand of the market" will fail, as the consumer can't "just walk away". Even though there is competition, there is no incentive to offer a "lower price" to get customers to switch, as you just don't get enough more customers to gain back the loss of revenue from the rest.

If the health plan involves keeping the current system and simply supporting those who fall through the cracks currently, it will be horribly expensive and fail (but immensely profitable for health industry companies, especially insurance companies). If the health plan actually involves an solution to the current situation - where, remember, the cost to the government, never mind the privately insured, already significantly exceeds that of other developed countries with a public health system - then it will almost certainly be cheaper.

Oh, it'll never fly - there's too much money in the game. Between the hospitals, the doctors, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and everybody else, nobody will be able to put through a system that doesn't protect the status quo. At which point, it'll cost massive taxpayer $$$, and be proof that the private sector does it better (when next the GOP get in).

And, of course, there are those who would disagree with some of my assumptions (the "it is arguable" statements). Many, if not most, are American. There's a reason I don't understand the conservatives (Democrats), never mind the ultra-way-far-right,-off-the-scale conservatives in the GOP.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

Mike777, the tone in your posts is as if there is a PC mafia that accuses everybody who dares to ask questions about a national health care of having bad ethics, making it impossible to have a serious discussion about this.

I might be misunderstanding you completely, of course.

Good grief no, they are very ethical. In fact I am one who asks questions about a Nat. Health care plan.

I just think the discussion of a Nat. health care plan sounds alot like the discussion before the vote on Iraq.
1) Americans are in grave danger.
2) We need the central government to intervene and save American lives.
3) All or most experts agree with points one and two.
4) Trust us we have a good plan to save Americans and we have the facts.
5) If you are against this intervention you simple do not care/have no heart about Americans who may die.



All of the above may be very true. I have no facts to dispute it. I just want to see the details. Democrats have been in power for years in Congress. They have access to the facts.

I just wish to see these facts, the facts that a Nat health care plan is better than free markets.

Again the main issue seems to be that increased government control of the health care free market is a net plus.

Everyone seems to be in favor of voting for Nat health care plan without any details, just like Iraq.

My concern is that we will intervene, spend trillions of bucks over years and have a disaster on our hands because we had a lousy plan or false facts. Just like Iraq or Vietnam

[mike777]

"The current health distribution and insurance system in the United States is arguably one of those things that would work more efficiently as a monopoly. Think, at least, of the wasted time and money involved in redundant administration and marketing."


Well if the central government wastes less money/time and increases quality over free markets, this sounds like a big plus.

[han]

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

[mike777]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

Yes, as I said in many other posts I think this will be the main and overriding point in the vote.

[PassedOut]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Feb 14 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

Agree, how can you vote against a Nat health care plan or little children die.

[jdonn]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I love you han.

[han]

I read a post of Luke Warm who explained that you are not the crazy village moron I always took you for. No, instead it is you who understands these topics much better than us, and by your nonsensical questions and sarcasm you keep us on our toes and stimulate our brain cells.

Well, I don't agree. It is easy to ridicule the opinions of others, and even easier to ridicule the thought processes of the American voter. Much harder is it to say what you actually think yourself. After all, once you argue for something you actually believe in it is much easier for others to attack your arguments.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Well if the central government wastes less money/time and increases quality over free markets, this sounds like a big plus.

When has that ever happened?

[jtfanclub]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I would greatly prefer to live in a country that has health care, period.

I went in an ambulance once for a vasovagal. Two miles, an IV drip, nothing exciting. A thousand bucks.

So I complain about it. They say the reason that it's so high is because so many people get an ambulance call and then can't afford to pay it. So it costs something like triple what it should, and then of course more people can't afford to pay it. So they charge even more, and eventually they go out of business. Rural hospitals are shutting down.

Almost everybody agrees that ambulance services shouldn't be dependent upon ability to pay (for one thing, it can be impossible to tell who has the ability to pay). But you can't force hospitals or ambulance companies to eat it, because then the hospital loses a lot of money, especially thanks to HMOs. While I don't think that all medical care needs to be part of a national health care system, I don't think that immediate trauma care can be based on ability to pay. I also think minimal urgent care is probably worth having as part of a national health care system, if only because it tends to prevent infectious diseases from getting a firm grip.

But the expensive stuff, like cancer, I don't have a problem with that being your choice. If your idea of health care is getting the Old Yeller treatment if something goes malignant, I guess I don't have a problem with it.

[DrTodd13]

PassedOut, on Feb 14 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

How about we sterilize parents who can't afford health insurance for their kids. That also solves the problem.

[DrTodd13]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

If you want everyone to have health care then you buy it for everyone personally. What you are saying is that you want to live in a country with systematic theft so that you can feel good about people having health care.

A right could be said to be something that is wrong to violate even if everyone on earth thought it was ok to violate. A privilege is something that is bestowed upon others by some group. I think these days most people don't believe in any objective morality but strangely they still claim to believe in right and wrong. The masses decide that something is right or wrong with ultimately no reason for that decision.

[han]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

What you are saying is that you want to live in a country with systematic theft so that you can feel good about people having health care.

We disagree about the meaning of some words but I think we understand eachother.

[luke warm]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

I read a post of Luke Warm who explained that you are not the crazy village moron I always took you for. No, instead it is you who understands these topics much better than us, and by your nonsensical questions and sarcasm you keep us on our toes and stimulate our brain cells.

Well, I don't agree. It is easy to ridicule the opinions of others, and even easier to ridicule the thought processes of the American voter. Much harder is it to say what you actually think yourself. After all, once you argue for something you actually believe in it is much easier for others to attack your arguments.

han, do you disagree with him that before we embark upon some nat'l health plan we (the american people) should know what it will cost us, individually? do you disagree with him when he says we shouldn't merely trust a president or a congress when they say, "this is the right thing to do regardless of the cost - trust us"? he likens that to the congress' votes on viet nam and iraq, do you agree with this?

that's all he's saying, but i have a bet with myself that i already know your answer... it will be "no" ... period

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

You choose to live in the United States...

By doing so, you are consenting to participating in the prevailing social contract and pay taxes.

I consent to something by my mere existence? To refuse to consent I have to kill myself? Where would you have me live where I'm not given this choice? Good logic there.

I couldn't care less where you live...

Wander off into the woods of Pacific North West... Build yourself a compound and start shooting at the revenue man... Give Waziristan a try. (It seems to be working well for Osama bin Laden. I'm sure you can escape the evil collectivist central government)

Even though you were born here in the United States, there is no reason that you need to stay. You always have the option to leave.

You choose to stay. You recognize that the benefits of civilized society out weigh the joys of living in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region... And in doing so, you are accepting the social contract that governs life in these United States with all associated rights and responsibilities.

I am curious as to why this post was never replied to.

[Aberlour10]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I agree.

Let's take Germany for example, the avarage employee pays about 7% of his monthly income for health insurance, if he/she does not sign it by private company.
( the rate = about 14%, the half of it pays the employer)
I think, its not so much if we know, that this insurance included health service for his wife and children.
Unemployed people have the same services.(paid by goverment)

[DrTodd13]

Because I didn't see it.

I agree an advanced civilized society has many benefits. What I reject is that civilization is equivalent to government. I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me. Just because I prefer civilization with government to lack of civilization with no government does not mean that I lose my right to lobby for what I think would be a better system. It's like a guy given a choice between getting beaten with a tire iron or a baseball bat and then told to stop complaining during the beating because he was given his choice of form of torture.