Topic: Government run Health care! yes or no?

My point exactly. I guess some think that it will work this time. Even though it has been proven other wise. Just like a science experement if you mix to chemicals together they always create the same product.

Yes, I want my health care run by the same government who won the Iraq war, saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, and refused to bail-out to big, slothful businesses. Unfortunately, we don't have that government. The government needs to find a way to make certain medical procedures available to the public, but I'm not sure Obama's plan is the answer. Also, if we wind up with government-run health care, I'm going to start charging a few cents to anyone on the street I catch smoking, seeing as my tax money will eventually go to giving them new lungs.

As far as some of your support goes; I'd question it. Before you give credence to polls that show y a majority of people liking their health care plan in other countries, look around your classroom/office/metro you ride into the city. Would you honestly trust the majority of those people's opinions?

Ok sure. I come from a little country called Australia. Well, actually it's quite large, geographically, and contains a disparate and mixed population, both in terms of socio-economic position, and ethnic breakdown.

We have a public, government controlled health system. We also have a private health system, for those who want to pay a bit more to get better quality health care - though I don't like writing this as it suggests the public health system is somehow faulty. It has its problems, but there's not an organisation, public or private, that doesn't have its problems.

The long and short of it is comments like this are really, really, ignorant - to the point of stupidity - and this thread is filled with them:

If the government controls healthcare, it will make everyones' lives misreable.

I and one of many thousands, perhaps even millions, of Australians who is not miserable.

"..or do I just believe what people tell me"
Pot, meet kettle. There are NO examples of anything resembling a death board/panel/etc. ever even being mention through creative euphemisms. I'd love to hear your source on this but fear the answer would come back Sarah Palin.

Plus should actually trust certain polls. Some of them are heavely biased aka the ones from the Government run news agencies.

Oh do not worry it is not from Sarah, I have heard it from many places like Fox news. Plus rationing of health care will cause some people to die so is that not like having a death board. As I have asked b4 have read threw the bill?

yes, but the majority of people who lost the iraq war and procrastinated a katrina responce are out of power, thank god...

Oh? Enlighten me.

fox news?! really!? fox news?! that's not the best news source

So much nonsense and confusion on the side of those opposing the Obama administration's proposed health insurance reform.

First off, the very fact that's insurance we're primarily talking about. I can't believe how many times false comparisons are being made to scenarios where the government actually runs health care, which isn't on the table at all right now. What is under discussion is a reform of health insurance, but your hospitals, doctors, clinics, and all other entities providing health care won't be taken over by the government under any proposal, so it's only muddying the debate to talk about the government running your hospitals, etc.

Second, covering the uninsured is not just a matter of compassion, it's a big part of bringing down costs across the board. Certainly we're talking about something that requires a substantial investment by the government in the immediate future, but the long term effect of bringing the uninsured into the system is that we can bring down costs on several levels. First, there's the fact that those without insurance simply go to an emergency room every time they need any kind of treatment, which is leading to horrendous clogging of emergency rooms and terrible inefficiency. Go to any hospital in an urban area or simply anywhere near regions of higher poverty, and you''ll see just how bad this problem has become; I sat in an emergency room with my girlfriend, who had broken her foot, for 9 hours before we could be seen, and really no one in front of us was in dire shape, they were simply people who couldn't get care elsewhere; back when I was a student, I was once terribly dehydrated from a stomach virus and the student health center sent me to a hospital in the city to get an IV, but I ended up having someone drive me several hours to my hometown for the same thing, because the emergency room at any hospital in the city would have taken even longer. Add to this the fact that the very significant numbers of those who don't have insurance are missing out on the preventative care they really need, which would cut down on these trips they make when a problem has gotten out of control. More preventative care for more people means savings and better efficiency.

There's also the fact, on that same point, that it's a basic principle of insurance that the larger the pool of those buying in, the lower the costs overall, since it's essentially just risk pooling. Many who are not particularly well-off financially are indeed buying insurance, but it's only those who badly need it, because otherwise it simply isn't worth it when it takes such a substantial part of your income. The obvious problem with that is that the risk pool is slanted the wrong way, which is corrected as you give more and more people an affordable way to buy in. On that point, a very big part of the current push is essentially in that direction, to allow for easier ways to buy into plans that are regulated to have fair conditions (no hidden clauses that will let them cut you out of payment when you finally are in real need) and to even allow smaller businesses to buy in on a larger scale, leading to better bargaining; the fact is that small business have a severe disadvantage under the current system, because they simply can't negotiate good prices on their own the way a company with thousands of employees is able to do so.

Next up, this has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, all bizarrely anachronistic Cold War paranoia aside. The fact is that health insurance reform is absolutely crucial for making our economy and workforce more flexible and competitive in all the ways that a capitalist should applaud. Two very pertinent examples: changing jobs frequently, and being self-employed. The fact is that self-employment has skyrocketed in recent years; I'm not talking primarily about business owners in the usual sense, but about those that contract out for work on a per-project basis, which has become remarkably common not only in the obvious places like technology but across the board for a wide range of professionals. The problem is that buying health insurance on your own is horribly difficult right now; it's far too expensive because of the fact that an individual has no real bargaining power, which again is the crucial factor in getting a good price for insurance, as it's a matter of risk pooling. Many of the current proposals are effectively helping the individual to buy into larger plans with set terms that will be negotiated in advance and that will not have steep hurdles regarding preexisting conditions, or hidden loopholes which can be used to deny coverage. The other group I mentioned, those that frequently change jobs, also represent a problem for the current system for parallel reasons, as you're suddenly left on your own to get a new health care plan each time you're in transition, which again is highly problematic and expensive.

The fact is that one of the only ways our workforce can continue to compete and move forward is increased flexibility, and particularly by taking the paths of contract work or other forms of temporary work that are in increased demand, and health insurance issues are a real barrier. As I mentioned several paragraphs up, it's also small businesses that have difficulty providing anything for their workers at a cost anywhere near as low as that larger companies can get, and anyone who supports capitalism and competition knows that a regressive advantage of that sort leads to less competition overall.

This is already too long, so one more, and it concerns the most ridiculous claim of all: this death-squad fantasy, or the notion that the elderly will be under consideration for euthanasia, or anything even vaguely of this sort, is not only a despicable scare tactic but utterly false in every way. The fact is that the provision in the bill which was distorted to create this lie has the backing of the AARP and other groups that represent the interests of the elderly, and simply allows for conversations regarding a living will to be covered by Medicaid, so that more individuals can take care of this extremely important matter properly. Far from being a matter of the government taking over your decisions, the whole point of a living will, and any form of a will, is so that your wishes are clearly stated and no bureaucratic hurdles or complications stand in the way of following your intentions to the letter.

Last time I checked we won the war in Iraq. As for Katrina you can blame that on bureaucracy.

^
I bureaucracy on the part of...republicans!

It is a good source of news if you are looking for a place that does not have all one sided stories.

fox news is SO one sided!

No actualy the Dems were in on it then. Also the local governments where not prepared for the storm.

As if NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC told the whole story. Have you even seen Fox or do you belive everything you are told.

"I have heard it from many places like Fox News"
My god. We hit the reason as to why you're convinced in death panels. Getting your news from Fox News is like listening to the village idiot. He never knows what he's talking about but he sure likes to go on.

And yes, I have read a good chunk of the bill. There is not rationing of health care mentioned that isn't exactly what insurance companies do.
I've said it before, but the upcoming health care bill isn't what I'm referring to directly. I think it should go further.

that does not excuse waiting to send in anything.

• @ the fox
  YES!
  EDIT#3 yay!
  @ gameking*
  i would much rather believe the fact than fox news is baised cause the other reality is that every other news source on the planet has a democratic bias

My enormous post was just lost within the flurry of activity it seems, but I do have one more remark, completely non-serious this time: The Fox, I just now realized that your fox avatar is not actually sticking his tongue out, as I'd long believed, but that it is instead his neck I was looking at. Also, some solid arguments by you in this thread, Fox!

@ warios woods agreed, the fox is really smart at this.