The Healthcare Debate, 1961

[grEnAlEins]

I don't just believe it works fine, I know it works fine.

O RLY? Would you care to examine the financial standings of the programs? Would you like to compare it to a suitable policy? Would you like to compare it to a similarly priced policy?

I depend on it and it works fine, for what it is.

And now I see why you need it to work, and need to believe it is working. I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but you got "effed" over by your government. They money that you put in is not there for you, and all of the promises were and are completely hollow.

I do agree that funding needs to be increased however, and would like to see a progressivizing of the Medicare tax rate.

Who are you agreeing with exactly? Do you have any interest on progressive returns or direct reapportionment? We both know you're not. It seems you just want the fruits of someone else's labor. You should only get what you put in, nothing more and nothing less. There is no free lunch.

[grEnAlEins]

He did more to make the illusion of prosperity than any President in your lifetime. People on the right raise high hell about deficits and debt today, but the modern unsurmountable deficit has its roots in Reagan policy. Reagan created the insane and ultimately disastrous policy of making less and spending much, much more. Sure in the short term things might feel good, but in the long term ... you're screwed. We're seeing the fallout of that terrible philosophy today, and while we are at least staying afloat, the Reaganomic chickens have yet to fully come home to roost.

HAHAHAHAHA! I think you need to re-read your history book. Deficit spending occurred WAY before Reagan's time. Actual deficit spending is a product of the FDR administration. The problem is rooted somewhat further back than that. Adjusted for inflation, the FDR and Reagan numbers are not all that far off. When you also break it down by population and adjust for inflation, the FDR numbers are WAY WAY worse. Of course you will not likely be fond of an apples to apples comparison...

[Ando]

by the government BOHICA!!!

[Shirow]

The other side of the coin being - regardless of your job, employer, physical status or illness, you will be treated without having to worry about coverage being revoked or refused. You will never have to worry about someone you know dying because of insurance issues.

The base fact in all this is healthcare is very expensive and a lot of changes need to be made to fix that problem. I don't think a lot of what is being proposed will fix it in this country but the status quo is not sustainable. There's a lot of money wasted in the system right now and you can argue a large portion of that is insurance company profit and doctors being paid by service. Some of the most efficient and well respected clinics in this country (Mayo, for example) have already made changes that would probably fix a lot of the issues if they were widespread, but it is easier to try to make some of these major changes than to try and restructure every hospital in the country.

My personal opinion is that health insurance companies are a worthless entity. That being said - if they disappeared tomorrow and were replaced by the government, I don't think anything would really change. A lot of the issues are tied to things like medical malpractice, fee for service and a multitude of other things that may or may not end up being addressed. Hopefully I will be proven wrong.

[Lohman446]

My personal opinion is healthcare costs got out of hand when the power was taken from the consumers. We pay the health care companies to take care of our bills. If the costs go up they simply up our costs. When we were paying directly for the services received we had ultimate control over costs, and costs were not out of hand. Hospitals didn't have multi-million dollar artsy staircases and entranceways either. Administrators were not paid the same as doctors. Things got out of hand from a "I can get something for nothing" attitude. Personally I think all health care companies should be forced to use a 10-20K deductible, placing routine care back into the hands of the consumers and forcing companies to justify the cost of healthcare.

Personally I no longer donate to charities. I figure the government takes enough of my money and uses it for unconstitutional handouts. I hate the thought of my taxes going up to support some welfare case who smokes and eats ding-dongs all day destroying his body and then expecting the rest of us to pick up the bill. I understand some people have bad luck and need help, and I have no problem with the idea of helping them. But I have watched government determine who should have help, and they are not diligent about weeding out corruption and laziness.

[bornl33t]

I don't just believe it works fine, I know it works fine.



I depend on it and it works fine, for what it is.

I do agree that funding needs to be increased however, and would like to see a progressivizing of the Medicare tax rate.



He did more to make the illusion of prosperity than any President in your lifetime. People on the right raise high hell about deficits and debt today, but the modern unsurmountable deficit has its roots in Reagan policy. Reagan created the insane and ultimately disastrous policy of making less and spending much, much more. Sure in the short term things might feel good, but in the long term ... you're screwed. We're seeing the fallout of that terrible philosophy today, and while we are at least staying afloat, the Reaganomic chickens have yet to fully come home to roost.

If they do ... god help us. The best we can do is hope we can slow down the disaster so they come home one at a time.

Your wrong

[Lohman446]

He did more to make the illusion of prosperity than any President in your lifetime. People on the right raise high hell about deficits and debt today, but the modern unsurmountable deficit has its roots in Reagan policy. Reagan created the insane and ultimately disastrous policy of making less and spending much, much more. Sure in the short term things might feel good, but in the long term ... you're screwed. We're seeing the fallout of that terrible philosophy today, and while we are at least staying afloat, the Reaganomic chickens have yet to fully come home to roost.

If they do ... god help us. The best we can do is hope we can slow down the disaster so they come home one at a time.

Elaborate off the talking point. Its already been shown that deficit spending was not new to Reagan and in fact traces it routes to long before. In fact, for someone complaining about deficit spending you surely don't seem to have a problem with the current deficit spending that is going to far outrun anything done in decades before, if not ever before.

[bornl33t]

Elaborate off the talking point. Its already been shown that deficit spending was not new to Reagan and in fact traces it routes to long before. In fact, for someone complaining about deficit spending you surely don't seem to have a problem with the current deficit spending that is going to far outrun anything done in decades before, if not ever before.

He's a lib, it's only bad if a conservative does it...

[Ando]

He's a lib, it's only bad if a conservative does it...

ROFL...

[Psi]

My personal opinion is that health insurance companies are a worthless entity.

I couldn't agree more. I heard an insurance industry exceutive say they only made 5 cents of profit on every dollar the other day. I had to laugh. Exxon only get 4 cents and their drilling projects cost billions. What up front cost do insurance companies have? And if the purpose of insurance is to avoid financial catastrophe, the number one reason given for personal bankruptcy filings would indicate that private health insurance is a failed model.

When it comes to a government "option" what many people fail to realize it that the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program is the government model on which the government insurance "option" will be based. Suffice it to say I don't think a government "option" in the health care system will fare any better than the OASDI program has. Like the OASDI, it will suck more and more people (who have no need of it services) into it as it will be the cheapest option, and in their old age, when they do need its benefits, they will discover it is woefully lacking in providing for their needs. But that will be after the government has mandated the "option" for everyone and mandated payroll taxes to pay for it.

While many people can not articulate that, it IS what they fear, and why so many are vehemently opposed to a government health care option. For those not familiar with the OASDI program, that is the official name of Social Security. As bad as the thought of another Social Security system would be , the current private insurance system might be even worse. Incompetence vs Greed is not much of an option. But so far they are the only options being offered.

[drg]

Elaborate off the talking point. Its already been shown that deficit spending was not new to Reagan and in fact traces it routes to long before. In fact, for someone complaining about deficit spending you surely don't seem to have a problem with the current deficit spending that is going to far outrun anything done in decades before, if not ever before.

It's not so much that deficit spending per se is bad, and indeed Reagan may have had a reason to deficit spend early. However the problems with Reagan's deficits were, among other things, that they were unprecedented in size for peacetime and when the economic cycle went the other way, he did not cut spending and raise taxes again. Unfortunately he did not pay a political price for this and left us with the disastrous legacy of failing economic policies and the terrible lesson that there is no political price to pay for creating those irresponsible policies. He basically told people there is such thing as a free lunch, when as we now know, there is not now nor was there ever such a thing.

I couldn't agree more. I heard an insurance industry exceutive say they only made 5 cents of profit on every dollar the other day. I had to laugh. Exxon only get 4 cents and their drilling projects cost billions. What up front cost do insurance companies have? And if the purpose of insurance is to avoid financial catastrophe, the number one reason given for personal bankruptcy filings would indicate that private health insurance is a failed model.

When it comes to a government "option" what many people fail to realize it that the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program is the government model on which the government insurance "option" will be based. Suffice it to say I don't think a government "option" in the health care system will fare any better than the OASDI program has. Like the OASDI, it will suck more and more people (who have no need of it services) into it as it will be the cheapest option, and in their old age, when they do need its benefits, they will discover it is woefully lacking in providing for their needs. But that will be after the government has mandated the "option" for everyone and mandated payroll taxes to pay for it.

Is your dour analysis of OASDI/social security based on anything other than the projected solvency of the program? As a guaranteed benefits program backed by the most powerful entity in the land, it works fine. It is an important guarantor of the freedom of the so-called free market to explore both success and failure without risking incurring social disaster.

Funding is an issue insomuch as it is a political football; this could and should be solved by legislation that requires proper funding levels. In any event, several commonsense changes such as the elimination of the wage cap and proper levies against unearned and/or corporate income would easily meet funding goals render the program solvent indefinitely. Only political machinations keep this very desirable result from happening.

While many people can not articulate that, it IS what they fear, and why so many are vehemently opposed to a government health care option. For those not familiar with the OASDI program, that is the official name of Social Security. As bad as the thought of another Social Security system would be , the current private insurance system might be even worse. Incompetence vs Greed is not much of an option. But so far they are the only options being offered.

While it is true that corporate programs are always subject to the influence of greed (as it is the very definition of for-profit), it is a curious misconception that the government is always incompetent. The government operates in the same environment and draws from the same populace as the private sector; in America, ostensibly the government IS the people. There is clearly a lot that the government does competently, or the nation would not be able to function at the level it does.

At any rate, the dichotomy of incompetence vs greed is a false one in this case. Let's accept for arguments' sake that the labels do in fact apply -- the status quo then is greed, but the public option is not incompetence, it is the choice between incompetence or greed. It is not putting healthcare in the government's hands or corporate hands as it is now, it is putting healthcare in YOUR hands. That is the ultimate dishonesty of opposition to the public option.

[Lohman446]

I think its too easy to call a for-profit greed, just as it is to call a government program incompetent. I have very specific instructions that if the services I provide cannot provide a needed service at a fair price that I am to sit down and rethink how things are going. Not every corporation is driven primarily by greed.

Deficit spending on occassion is likely not a problem. It becomes a problem when it becomes a way of life rather than the exception.

[bornl33t]

It's not so much that deficit spending per se is bad, and indeed Reagan may have had a reason to deficit spend early. However the problems with Reagan's deficits were, among other things, that they were unprecedented in size for peacetime and when the economic cycle went the other way, he did not cut spending and raise taxes again. Unfortunately he did not pay a political price for this and left us with the disastrous legacy of failing economic policies and the terrible lesson that there is no political price to pay for creating those irresponsible policies. He basically told people there is such thing as a free lunch, when as we now know, there is not now nor was there ever such a thing.

But there is free health care/inshurance?

Is your dour analysis of OASDI/social security based on anything other than the projected solvency of the program? As a guaranteed benefits program backed by the most powerful entity in the land, it works fine. It is an important guarantor of the freedom of the so-called free market to explore both success and failure without risking incurring social disaster.

Funding is an issue insomuch as it is a political football; this could and should be solved by legislation that requires proper funding levels. In any event, several commonsense changes such as the elimination of the wage cap and proper levies against unearned and/or corporate income would easily meet funding goals render the program solvent indefinitely. Only political machinations keep this very desirable result from happening.



While it is true that corporate programs are always subject to the influence of greed (as it is the very definition of for-profit), it is a curious misconception that the government is always incompetent. The government operates in the same environment and draws from the same populace as the private sector; in America, ostensibly the government IS the people. There is clearly a lot that the government does competently, or the nation would not be able to function at the level it does.

Hardly. Name one thing the government does better then the private sector. Over legislation of any government run business results in too many people doing not enough..in which case the government always hires more. It's no secret that the best benefits comes from a government job. So now we have way too many people being employed by the people getting payed way more then they are worth.....

At any rate, the dichotomy of incompetence vs greed is a false one in this case. Let's accept for arguments' sake that the labels do in fact apply -- the status quo then is greed, but the public option is not incompetence, it is the choice between incompetence or greed. It is not putting healthcare in the government's hands or corporate hands as it is now, it is putting healthcare in YOUR hands. That is the ultimate dishonesty of opposition to the public option.

Foot in the door policies....get something/anything going and we can just keep throwing new ideas/people into the mix until it works.
How about just allowing capitalistic competition (health insurance across state lines) instead of government intervention? Are we afraid that a few thousand people that don't want a job will stay uninsured? Some people like to live in tents, you can through all the money in the world at them and they will stay a bum. Your obviously a brain cause you thought this through so well with such big words that you confused or lost most of your audience and the ones that stayed with you found no reasoning or contradicting arguments ( not unlike our current president ). Not always does higher education eliminate stupidity. As I see it sometimes fortifies it...

oh yeah...and... YOUR WRONG

[Psi]

Is your dour analysis of OASDI/social security based on anything other than the projected solvency of the program?

Yes. My dour analysis is based on 1) knowing how much I have put in 2) knowing what rate of return I could generate on the same money 3) reading the updates I receive from them and their projections for what I will be paid 4) and knowing that it will be wholly inadequate for providing even my basic needs.

The only reason the OASDI is because I can not be trusted to provide for my own old age, unemployment , or disability. Therefore the government mandates that I participate in the program so others can provide for my shortcomings. That in concept is a wonderful and noble concept. In reality though, it is a recipe for fraud, abuse, and fostering a mindset where my future is not my responsibility. It has been my observation that anytime you collect a big pile of money for the collective welfare of the public that some will abuse the privilege of drawing from it, some will steal from it, and the vast majority of the people that contribute to it will get screwed.

[Lohman446]

Because I am curious. Does Wal-mart profit at all on the $10 prescriptions they offer? If they were all about greed would they not cut this program for a more profitable one?