Socialism One and All!

[chafnerjr]

So I should forget about the constitution because our politicians were screwing it up before we were born? I'll have to pass on that thanks! There has been a lot of good hard information offered up in this thread (on many sides). A few here have responded with uninformed passion and I called them on it. I would happily apologize if that would make anyone feel better. Let's not let this drag down the discussion.

Reform needed? YES! But there needs to be a logical, well thought out way to implement it. And going against the desires of the majority of the populace, AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION is NOT the way to do it.

Exactly right! Thank you!

[CatoRockwell]

[cockerpunk]

Can anyone here give me a logical and realistic reason as to why smoking a cigarette, a pipe, a cigar, pot, a hookah or any apparatus of burning a material and inhaling the smoke or fumes is good for you?

Can anyone tell us how SAFE it is?

I'm sorry, but if MY TAXES are going to go to YOUR healthcare, then I think ANYTHING hazardous should be removed from the publics ability to consume. Your meals shall be rationed and you shall be allowed no more than what it is found that your body needs through extensive studies of your caloric intake.

You shall be put on an exercise regimen so that you remain in tip top health.

You shall be restricted from doing any activity that can result in injury or death and those activities shall be decided upon by a panel of 'experts'. Some activities up for ban are: Football, Running, Bicycling, Motorcycling, Rock Climbing, Scuba Diving, Sky Diving, Driving, Walking, Showering, Sex (either with or without a partner), Swimming, Sunbathing, Consumption of Alcohol, Paintball, Fishing, Hunting, Putting up a Christmas tree. This is the preliminary list. It is to be updated and edited as deemed necessary.

Please see this list ~> http://health.howstuffworks.com/15-m...ted-states.htm and note that anything that can be connected as a contributing factor to this list shall be banned as well.

Additionally anyone that is put for any reason into a vegetative state shall be kept on life support indefinitely regardless of the wants and desires of the family and any living will that may be in existence for such occurences.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter as we are only looking out for YOUR health and well-being in this glorious world.

That is all.

DM

your money is already going to those people. and the new bill doesn't mark your tax dollars to doing so, because your money is already going to those people.

the healthy pay for the sick, this is how all medical insurance works. government run or otherwise.

hell, your currently paying for all the uninsured with your money too. anyone with health insurance is giving free healthcare to the uninsured already, through higher costs due to mandated treatment in hospitals. its not like the hospital, its staff and its resources are free, the insured are covering the uninsured.

so if your complaining about socialism, you already should have been. the current law is no more socialist then the previous laws. the only way it wouldn't be socialist is if those who couldn't pay got left for dead in the ER waiting room. however, the law requiring hospitals to treat those people have been on the books for decades, and anyone who would protest them is a terrible person - period.



i do have problems with the bill though. we have a similar bill in the state of minnesota about car insurance. everyone who drives a car must have liability coverage. great idea, becuase who likes deal with bad drivers without insurance?

well, it means car insurgence in our state sucks and is super expensive.


make no mistake, with or without this bill health insurance rates WILL go up. i think the bill will force companies to drop health insurance as a benefit becuase a 2 grand fine per person is a drop in the bucket compared to the actual costs they are currently paying.


bu socialism ... this bill is simply NOT socialism. if there was anything in this whole debate at is socialist, is the law requiring treatment for those that can;t pay for ... and that law has been around FOREVER.




inb4 butt hurt glenn beck fans freak out at a dose of reality.

[drg]

Sorry DRG... I could have checked the internet for the ideological definition. I would really have liked your particular definition. Many socialist countries don't belong in any of those definitions and hence I cannot accept them (consider this academic rather than a challenge).

Eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...list_countries

I sir am entitled (as are you) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness EVEN BEFORE we begin to consider our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Now we have laws to protect my rights from infringing upon yours as we should. After all, freedom at the expense of another is no freedom at all. Herein lies my problem. In order to provide health insurance of some others are being severely penalized.

First of all, I don't think you can actually point to anyone being "severely penalized" by the new law. Second, ultimately the ideas you put forth are ideology without regard to reality. That's what the left has that the right routinely disregards -- a firm grounding in reality. There are many, many instances where doing nothing leads to a result that is neither free nor fair. In a corporatist system like the current US, this has possibly never been more true.

Neither the gov nor the insurance companies have any business running health care. WE THE PEOPLE should be allowed to make our own decisions for better or worse. Obviously the government (both federal and local) has a responsibility to regulate the basic safety of these products/services, to foster and environment that promotes both innovation and "the general welfare" of the people by carefully encouraging a free market to drive down the cost of these goods and services.

The basic problem underlying this premise is that the ability of the average person to actually make decisions is dwindling, for a huge number of reasons. Cost increases, wage decreases, health epidemics (many societally based), recissions, market dynamics, etc. have put the very notion of access to healthcare in question for a growing segment of the population.

There will always be a place for insurance, but it should be for catastrophic life events. The cost of basic goods and services to keep us healthy on a regular basis must be reduced to affordable levels.

The way this is currently done is through insurance. Costs come down via increasing scale. There is only so much competition can do for cost reduction, and it almost always comes at the expense of quality. Not the best solution for something like healthcare. The only way to achieve greater quality and lower cost is to aggregate on a larger scale.

You seem to believe that when some of us say: "The Federal Government should stay the heck out of healthcare" You think we're saying "I sure wish the big corporations or insurance companies ran it instead". Where did you miss the point that NEITHER is the solution and ALMOST NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEES IT republican, democrat, or otherwise!

Again, ideology without consideration for reality. Are you proposing a dissolution of medical corporations? Would that not be incredible government intervention? Would that lead to a better system? We already know what will happen if the market is left to its own devices -- monolithic corporations will seize control. This is obviously undesirable.

So where does that lead us? It lead us exactly where all other first-world industrialized nations have already arrived -- that government is the appropriate entity to manage a nation's healthcare. By removing profit motive, it keeps the system clean and lean. By removing corporate concerns, it allows the system to be concerned about the needs of the people, rather than the needs of the owners.

If I am on a side it's the AMERICAN side I just wish more Americans were as well. DRG, I'm glad that you stick up for your beliefs. I just wish I understood why your beliefs seem to be the democratic party line.

To think that only one side is "for America" is offensively demagogic. Policies that put "we" before "me" are intended to benefit America as a whole. Looking at the reality of what happens when you leave people operating within the American system to their own devices, wide swaths of people suffer while relatively few rise up. All while those already at the top aggregate even more of the pie.

Ultimately you're angry about the state of the nation, and I get that. The problem is you don't understand what happened to America and therefore cannot accept what needs to be done to fix it. Right-wing policies of deregulation and fewer limits on aggregation of money and power have decimated the American middle class and have greatly exaggerated income stratification.

This was made possible politically by a foisting an ideology promoting lofty terms like "freedom" and "liberty" onto a swath of the population that was both susceptible to these concepts while being ignorant of reality (willfully or not). That's why the modern right coincides with anti-science, fundamentalist religious, anti-education and rural demographics.

so if your complaining about socialism, you already should have been. the current law is no more socialist then the previous laws. the only way it wouldn't be socialist is if those who couldn't pay got left for dead in the ER waiting room. however, the law requiring hospitals to treat those people have been on the books for decades, and anyone who would protest them is a terrible person - period.

Not only that, but a system requiring payment up front simply would not work. Obviously a person in medical distress is not in a position to render payment, and many people would not have cash or credit on hand to pay for expensive services regardless.

Billing for future payment is essential to any commercial medical system, and therefore our current problems with fraud and inability to pay will continue to exist. The only real solution is a universalizing of the ability to pay, of which one solution is universalized health insurance.

[CatoRockwell]

Glenn Beck is a late comer to the cause of freedom. It isnt fair to label everyone who believes in the constitution and inherent freedoms as Glenn Beck groupies. this bill is just one of many many atrocities committed against our freedoms. I just wonder what will be the final straw to get people ready to fight for their freedom.

[cockerpunk]

ah drg, there is a reason your not on my ignore list here!


i think we have to face facts right now, like drg said about being in reality.

there is one way and only way way we can reduce health care costs in this country - less healthcare.

last summer i worked for a 20 odd BILLION dollar medical device company. we sold over 150 different products - guess how many actually directly saved human lives?

one

we had literally one product that saved a humans life directly. EVERY other product was treatment for some chronic condition.

what does that tell you about healthcare in this country? keep in mid of course this wasn't some profit hungry company, fully a third of the budget was put back into R&D, that is developing more and better medical devices.




so sure, you can lower healthcare costs. if you want to tax medical device companies out of there R&D money and halt that forward progress. sure, you can lower healthcare costs, if you want to regulate the amount of healthcare spending on the elderly. sure you can cut healthcare costs, if you want to roll back covered services!

unless your willing to do that, nothing is going to cut healthcare costs. anyone who says otherwise is selling something.


glenn beck a constitutionalist ... lol. glenn has clearly never read the Constitution.

[Lohman446]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

[athomas]

It is the infrastructure that goes along with health care that costs alot. We try to put it in simple terms as if we were renting a room, we could do it cheaper. We also don't have to pay for all the support services that go with running a medical facility. They are expensive to run and the costs are put into other supplies. Which is why we get $5.00 aspirin. Its not that the cost of an aspirin is $5, but there is a lot of other expenses covered in the $5. Medical is just expensive due to the reports and records as well as the checks and balances that have to be done.

Cockerpucnk stated it well. Reducing service is the only way to truely cut costs, but at a price to the quality of service.

[DevilMan]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

I think that was stated previously.

And you follow it back to it's roots and you get into the cost of a degree in that field. Why do books cost $200+ dollars? Why does the education system have to change books every semester? Tell me what has change in the last century on how math works, how science works, how english works, etc. There is ZERO need to keep printing and producing new textbooks for colleges and primary schools on the level that they are doing so. And don't try that crap of "books wear out, and get tore up and get wet" and everything else.

It's waste fraud and abuse. And that's of the taxpayers money. It's no different than the places that get gov money, both fed and state and "HAVE TO SPEND IT, OR WE GET LESS NEXT TIME!" So they go out and spend it on stupid crap just to fill up the order so that WE get taxed more the next year to cover the increase since they used it all up in 07, that must mean they need more in 08 right?

Again, it's a crooked and jacked up system!!! Trying to fix corruption and greed by throwing more money at it, isn't the way it works. The same for healthcare.

DM

[chafnerjr]

Wow... this discussion has broadened hasn't it. I'm at work so I can't get into all the points I wanted to make just yet, but I have to say that textbooks do need to be updated and VERY often. Information changes very very rapidly now-a-days even for basic history, science, etc. Only english tends to do well on old books. However, this doesn't mean that they need to cost huge amounts of money. Several states are working on "open source" textbooks that will end up being a very very very small fraction of the cost. I will get into how open sourcing should be applied to certain aspects of the medical industry and the R&D of these new medicines.

Lohman446, I agree with your last post, costs are going to kill this system both ways, and I must disagree with athomas. Yes there are a lot of infrastructural costs, training, liability ins. etc that factor into that cost, but it can really be reduced far below what it is.

My main issue here is that this bill (law now), regardless of whether or not you agree with what it does, is fundamentally unconstitutional. That goes back to the original purpose of this thread. Yes I understand that gov has been violating that for decades but it doesn't invalidate the argument.

We can get back to constitutionality AND fix healthcare!

[CatoRockwell]

My question on education is the same as healthcare, it isn't a matter of what the government should do, but should the government be involved in the first place?

I firmly believe that the free market will always drive costs down, and provide every individual with more options.

[Lohman446]

I think that was stated previously.

And you follow it back to it's roots and you get into the cost of a degree in that field. Why do books cost $200+ dollars? Why does the education system have to change books every semester? Tell me what has change in the last century on how math works, how science works, how english works, etc. There is ZERO need to keep printing and producing new textbooks for colleges and primary schools on the level that they are doing so. And don't try that crap of "books wear out, and get tore up and get wet" and everything else.

It's waste fraud and abuse. And that's of the taxpayers money. It's no different than the places that get gov money, both fed and state and "HAVE TO SPEND IT, OR WE GET LESS NEXT TIME!" So they go out and spend it on stupid crap just to fill up the order so that WE get taxed more the next year to cover the increase since they used it all up in 07, that must mean they need more in 08 right?

Again, it's a crooked and jacked up system!!! Trying to fix corruption and greed by throwing more money at it, isn't the way it works. The same for healthcare.

DM

I pay the surgeon a "reasonable" rate seperate from that 10K. The surgeon, the one with all the education. The administrators have not earned the degree to be needed to be paid the same as the surgeons.

The system has a problem that regulation could have had a hand in fixing. Hospitals, health care corporations, administrators are all making excessive profits IMO.

[athomas]

....but I have to say that textbooks do need to be updated and VERY often. Information changes very very rapidly now-a-days even for basic history, science, etc. Only english tens to do well on old books. However, this doesn't mean that they need to cost huge amounts of money. Several states are working on "open source" textbooks that will end up being a very very very small fraction of the cost...

Some older texts were not well written. They are quite often too literate and are written at the Phd level. They don't cater to the average learner. Open source text books are great and are a great way to reduce costs. In my engineering courses, my text book cost is actually quite low. I do have a couple of texts that are in the $200 range, but they are used for multiple math subjects over more than one term. A lot of our courses have text books that are produced by the professors. They can be either obtained free in pdf form so you can print them as needed or can be purchased for $20.00 with a basic cover. We even have some that are nicely bound for around $30.00. These are actually the best laid out books that I have.


There are lots of ways to cut costs in any business. In healthcare, we can cut drug costs by using generic brands as soon as the 20 year patent runs out. Drug costs are one of the highest expenses in health care.

[drg]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

You have conflated two different issues here, the value cost of medical services, and the "freight" cost of the current system. All medical costs contain some systemic costs, and to that extent, sweeping systemic changes are de facto cost controls.

Not as good as direct cost controls, but from a certain way of thinking, cost controls without systemic changes are unduly burdensome on the providers and facilities.

[XM15]

As for making things like smoking, and alcohol being restricted items? Tax them at a higher rate so that by using them you pay for the extra costs on the health care system that they bring. I believe the same should be done for fuel so that people are forced to find vehicles that are less toxic. You can't tax everything and you can't restrict everything and everybody. That is the basic freedom we enjoy. There is a price for that, and I personally don't mind paying my share and a little more to cover those less fortunate than myself. I pay a hefty amount of taxes every year through income tax and sales tax, and it really doesn't bother me, because I have a lot of freedom.

In the same paragraph you think the gov't should force individuals to make choices that you think are correct and also say you have alot of freedom. If you really believe the gov't has the power to do that then the only freedoms you have are what the gov't allows you to have.