Here's Why Government's Meddling

LongJim · May 1, 2009

oldguystudent · May 1, 2009

I'd like fries with my lamb.

SUMG · May 1, 2009

A Democrat congresswoman, admits (to a cheering throng) that Obama's National Health Care will destroy the private health insurance industry:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html

Oh it's gonna be so neat when we all have nationalized health care. The shortages of doctors. The fact that we'll all be going for health care to government run hospitals and clinics. The fact that it might soon takes months to get a MRI or a CT-scan. And what will be especially neat is when health care starts getting rationed. I can't wait!

hickoryhouse · May 1, 2009

If we were to nationalize health care how many jobs would we lose? Insurance companies, private practice dr's and nurses, etc?

yyz28 · May 1, 2009

Medicare and Medicaid aren't paying the bills they have now and they budget for 15% fraud. That's all you need to know when considering National health care.

The fact that the rest of us have to pick up the difference for what the Government doesn't get paid and for what those without insurance don't pay is why our healthcare costs are going up. It isn't greedy doctors and insurance companies. There are MANY steps that we should and can take before we throw up our hands and let government (who ran the post office so well they had to partially privatize it, and can't figure out what to do with Swine Flu) run the whole thing.

KRAM1 · May 1, 2009

If you like how all the various governmental bodies are handlining this flu non-epidemic then you will love nationalized health care.

UNTnewbie · May 1, 2009

My Opinion is that a National Health care system, run by the government, will end up creating two entirely different health care systems. There will still be private Health care out there for those that are willing to and can afford paying higher fees for immediate access. This will further fuel the Class Envy that has been rising dramitically over the past few years. National Health care providers will end up being staffed by the lowest of the professionals. Although these professionals have their degree, they will be the ones that just squeaked by in Medical School or maybe those taking advantage of the government funded education for their first few years out of school to pay back those wonderful government backed loans. This is not just taking a step down a slippery slope but a leap into the great unknown. Nothing that runs through my head believes this to be anything that could be labeled as good for the U S of A and its citizens! But of course that just me....moderate-conservative that I am.

Edited May 1, 2009 by UNTnewbie

UNTflyer · May 2, 2009

As a military brat and former Navy man, I can tell you that I experienced the closest thing we have in America to nationalized healthcare. It's not good. Sitting around a military hospital for 6 hours to have a broken ankle looked at while officers with a head cold are seen immediately.

Wanna know what national healthcare will look like? Visit the DMV, or the IRS, or HHS, or any other government-run service.

And lest the President forgets... Clinton's health care plan was not quite as ambitious, and in the first mid-term the Congress went Republican for the first time in 40 years.

FirefightnRick · May 2, 2009

Just curious, but where's all the "LEVEL HEADED" liberal comments concerning this analogy linked in this post?

Rick

oldguystudent · May 2, 2009

And lest the President forgets... Clinton's health care plan was not quite as ambitious, and in the first mid-term the Congress went Republican for the first time in 40 years.

You're talking about the '93 health plan, right? Her 2008 campaign plan was the same health care afforded to Congress, and it was mandatory. That lit up two big red flags for me immediately. First of all, it's one thing to pay for the health care of 500 people in Washington with tax money. It's quite another to pay for it for 300 million people! Second, was the mandatory part.

Maybe things have changed since, but as I understood Obama's plan during the campaign, he wanted to make the government one big group purchaser of existing private insurance plans, and the general populace would have the option to buy in on it. Doesn't look like things are gonna' go that way, though does it?

I'm all for the government making things available to those that have no other options. I draw the line at forcing me to participate thoughl

EagleD · May 2, 2009

Just curious, but where's all the "LEVEL HEADED" liberal comments concerning this analogy linked in this post?
Rick

I'm more curious to find out what the "level headed" right wingers think of our current health care system. Nixon signed it into law even after this conversation!

Right now a doctor doesn't decide if I get the necessary surgery I need. Some clown in a cubicle in Omaha, Nebraska (or some other random city) whom I've never met nor knows anything about me makes that call.

I understand your fears. I'm not 100% sold on it either, but it has to be better than what we have now. We are the only industrialized nation w/o universal health care. Why? B/C money rules. Big pharma (just like the NRA) is in the pockets of our politicians, left and right. It's why I wouldn't vote for Hillary, more specifically why I look at 3rd party candidates. HMO's are about making money, not looking out for your best interest. At least with government control you have a voice, but with corporation control is all about the board room. If you're poor, or really just unemployed, you're screwed.

A coworker of mine is about to be laid off. He's been with the company 23 years. He's 7 years away from early retirement. He's done all the right things, saved, invested, etc. The loss of income doesn't scare him, but the loss of health insurance is petrifying! All it takes is trouble with his ticker and his savings is wiped out! Why is that? If universal health care is not the answer, then what is? Our current system DOES NOT WORK!

Time and time again I've been told by people on the right to talk to Canadians about their system and how flawed it is. I have. My employer used to do quite a bit of business with a Canadian company. While they admit some problems, they said they would much rather have their system, every last one of them!

If the right wingers are so sure that Obama's plans are going to fail, and more people will be unemployed, then those people will most likely be uninsured as well. That just leaves people dying in the streets.

At the very least, insure children. Let me say this again with emphasis, at the very least, insure children. If you don't want to pay for some meth head's ingrown toenail surgery, I understand that logic. But a child born into poverty shouldn't have to suffer just b/c his parents are poor.

So again I ask you, are you happy with the current system? And if not what are your solutions?

oldguystudent · May 2, 2009

But a child born into poverty shouldn't have to suffer just b/c his parents are poor.

But it's been explicitly stated on this board that health care is not a right and implied that his parents simply should have worked harder. Screw him!

UNTflyer · May 2, 2009

I disagree Eagle, on several points.

First, someone in a cubicle is not making every decision regarding your health. They make decisions about whether they are going to pay the benefit. Some things under an HMO or PPO are automatically approved for payment, some have to be reviewed. Just because a doctor approves something doesn't mean it is necessary. So under our insurance system, some claims are reviewed to ensure they are needed. However, under a nationalized system approval for your surgery will absolutely be required, even for minor procedures.

Second, why does national health care have to better than what we have now? Our current system is driven by profit, it is true. But profit is the great motivator to maximize resources. It gives hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and insurance companies incentives to be efficient. And I am perplexed by your claim that "at least with government control you have a voice." How so? Ever known someone who tried to file a Social Security claim? I have a friend who is disabled, she lost her leg. She can't get Social Security disability.

People dying in the streets? That is hardly likely. In America, anyone go to to a hospital and get treated whether they have insurance or not. Visit an ER and see how many lower income people bring their kids in for a runny nose. Why do they do that? Because they know they won't have to pay for it. The costs of those who do not pay get thrown on the backs of those who do pay. It's why a tylenol in an ER costs $10 a tablet.

Your friend who is 7 years away from early retirement seems to be a case of someone who is not ready to retire. Retirement is for those who can afford to live out their days without working. Retirement is not a right, it is a luxury. His retirement plans need to include health insurance coverage, either through Medicare or a private insurance plan or both.

"At the very least, insure children." OK, it's hard to argue against that but I'll give it a shot. We already cover low-income children through CHIP and Medicaid. In fact, CHIP was extended to cover middle class children from families who can afford insurance. This is the problem with government programs, they always expand beyond their original intent. And here's a novel thought... if you cannot afford to feed and clothe and care for children, it's probably a good idea to not have any.

Just so we could have a frame of reference, I just went out and got a quote from www.gohealthinsurance.com for a single parent and two children. I found a plan for $62 a month with a low deductible and prescription coverage. Conventional wisdom says low-income families cannot afford this, yet these same families seem to be able to afford luxuries like cable television, electronic gadgets, and fast food. I see parents complain about the cost of health insurance when their darling little 12 year old is wearing designer sneakers and carrying a cell phone.

So my question is this: Isn't the problem really an issue of whacked out priorities on the part of parents, and not that health insurance is unaffordable? Am I happy with the current system? Yes, I am. I choose to buy health insurance through my company, and it is more then adequate to cover my family's needs. I have never had a claim denied, I can choose what doctor I want to see, and I receive the best care the world has to offer.

Finally, enough of the "right-winger" crap. I know a lot of people across the political spectrum, and I know many liberals who believe in a free market system and do not want nationalized health care. I know conservative union workers who do want it. The isn't a right vs. left argument.

oldguystudent · May 2, 2009

I have never had a claim denied

When the wife was pregnant, we had prenatal care, prenatal tests, the birth, the hospital stay, and the NICU stay denied, denied, denied, even though all doctors, tests, procedures and hospitals were clearly in-network and clearly on the list of approved procedures. The prenatal birth defect test, in fact, is mandated by the state of California to be covered by insurance. Afterward? Birth control pills. Guess what? Denied again. I got it all covered in the end, but I've been pretty convinced ever since that insurance companies systematically deny every claim knowing that a certain percentage of people won't fight it. This was insurance through my company through a major national provider on their most expensive and comprehensive plan.

UNTflyer · May 3, 2009

I feel for you oldguy. I would have been suing the insurance company. We hear of these cases but I honestly do not think this is the norm. It doesn't make business sense to deny every claim - the company would never have a customer.

I still feel that despite its shortcomings, private insurance is the better solution to nationalized health care.

eulesseagle · May 3, 2009

If national health care is so great then how come so many individuals from these countries that have national health care come to the United States for treatment??

NHC entails some non medical bureaucrat making a decision if you can have medical treatment. Is that what you want. Not in a free economy you don't.

In all these countries medical staff are limited to the number of clients they can see and most of the time the waiting lists are months away.

Scan some of the older articles in the British papers from the Times and Telegraph if want a preview.

The process we have in the USA is the best....however, it may not be perfect but it is the best.

In the DFW area if you have no insurance you can always go to Peter Smith or Parkland. You may have to wait a few hours but not days or months for treatment. Fortunately, it is like this thoughout the country. Illegals from south of the border take advantage of this. Why do you think border states hospitals are in the "red?" California is shutting down hospitals because of the overload of free treatment that is being picked up by the taxpayers.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

While other countries want to get out of NHC the US is rushing to get into it.......hummmmm........

for proof just google NHC and read for yourselves.

eulessismore · May 3, 2009

I feel for you oldguy. I would have been suing the insurance company. We hear of these cases but I honestly do not think this is the norm. It doesn't make business sense to deny every claim - the company would never have a customer.
I still feel that despite its shortcomings, private insurance is the better solution to nationalized health care.

I think there will always be private health plans; even the government health plans in the Canadian provinces are considered only a part of the health care solution for most Canadians, who will consider employer based plans as part of their decision on whether to take the job.

Personally, I am now looking for a new Primary Care Doctor; he sent a letter saying a single practitioner couldn't make it in today's health care environment and is closing his practice, and a new Dermatologist, who is not in the network of the new insurance provider for my insurance (through my wife's employer). Those changes lead me to think the insurance companies could do better, if they're the ones calling the shots in health care, which I think is largely the case.

I hope the insurance companies do better than the credit card companies, who are presently being thrown under the bus even by their staunchest past defenders, Republican congressmen. I guess they rode that deregulatory horse into the ground, rather than engaging in reasonable self regulation. Maybe it's just a pipedream that corporate bureaucracies will do the right thing without some regulatory oversight.

As William F. Buckley said shortly before his death, "Regulation is a legitimate function of government". I think a reasonable dose of regulation could be preferable to letting things get so bad that nationalization of those "too big to fail" is seen as the only choice, even by Republican Presidents.

UNTflyer · May 3, 2009

Ive said it before... Nationalized Health Care will be just fine, as long as it is written into law that members of Congress and the President have to participate as well. When it's good enough for them, then it will be good enough for me.

hickoryhouse · May 3, 2009

My Girlfriend comes from a country with a national health care system in europe. She grew up in that country under communsitic reign. It is incredibly interesting to me to hear her speak about the US from her European point of view. I hear a good deal from her, and many other places, about the "negative foreign perspective" that the US has to a large part of the world, I hear about the disagreements that Europe has against us as a whole on foreign policy, taxes, investments, etc.

The one thing, over these past three years that we have been together, that strikes me the most odd.... is that she felt the same way as all of the America haters across the pond, until SHE GOT HERE!!! There is a marked difference in her opinion of America now vs the way that she and the majority of the youth of Europe felt when she first got here. She doesn't hate us now that she knows us, she isn't as frustrated about our foreign policy decisions anymore as she learns more about the history of foreign policy of this country and as she learns more about the United States tradition of foreign aid that is unequaled anywhere in the world...

She does however miss government run dentistry... Not so much the rest of Government run Health care.... As a young girl she was the victim of a horrible truck vs. bike accident. In Europe with that form of government run health care she was submitted to relatively rudimentary emergency care and substandard, by American standards, post trauma and cosmetic care after the accident. Her family is by no means rich, but could afford a much higher level of care had she been here in the states. She was forced to go to that doctor thanks to government regulations and due to that substandard level of government run health care, she still suffers from an accident that happened more than ten years ago.

I understand the desire to have affordable health care for the masses, the government is not the body to do that. I have a personal example of this wake up next to me every morning. I do not see any reason why there is such a push for the government to take control of this industry, no one has been able to give me a good reason or a decent example of where this has worked or why it will work here.

The truth is that we all agree there is a need for health care reform, we just don't agree on how to do it. The government should be ashamed of themselves for trying to force a major change in regards to our health care on us without a significant debate. Lets fix whats wrong, but at least let us talk about how to do it.

DeepGreen · May 3, 2009

Ive said it before... Nationalized Health Care will be just fine, as long as it is written into law that members of Congress and the President have to participate as well. When it's good enough for them, then it will be good enough for me.

Amen!

UNTnewbie · May 3, 2009

What's weird about all this stuff is any and all children can get health care whether their parents can afford it or not. Come check out Parkland any day of the week, teaming with those that don't have insurance. Anyone can get medical help if they are willing to wiat...and wait...and wait...and wait some more to see a Doc. Come sit and watch for a morning and see where a National Health Care system will lead this country. Democrates want to get it under government control because it will be a cash cow and something they can wave in front of those less fortunate in future elections eventhough it will bleed everyone dry and I mean everyone.

MDH · May 3, 2009

Being a dual citizen and having lived in Canada, all I have to say is: DON"T DO IT!!!

The quality of healthcare is night and day better here in the US. My GP up there made only $55k a year...and that's Canadian $ folks. Most of the talented Canadians leave to come to the US to practice which leaves a lot of immigrants as doctors up there. Nothing wrong with immigrants, but if they were more knowledgable they'd be in the US as well.

oldguystudent · May 3, 2009

Must be some pretty horrific health care up there.

The life expectancy of Canadians continues to rise, and has now reached 80.4 years, according to new numbers released Monday by Statistics Canada.
The federal agency's numbers are based on data from 2005, with a baby born that year expected to live to 80.4. In 1991, babies were only expected to live to 77.8. In 2004, life expectancy was 80.2.

vs

April 22, 2009 -- Life expectancy reached a record high in 2006, the CDC reports.
Babies born in 2006 have a record life expectancy of 77.7 years, up from 77.4 years in 2005, the report shows. The CDC chalks that up to a decline in deaths from heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and stroke.
Even though life expectancy is at an all-time high, the 2006 life expectancy figure is a bit lower than what the CDC predicted last year, based on preliminary estimates.

I would wager the difference is in convenience on the routine stuff and quality on the super rare experimental surgeries that keep Keith Richards alive. Honestly, I doubt there's much difference between some socialist immigrant in Canada giving me a flu shot and a member of the country club set doing it here. I'll reiterate that I think the government should have something available for everybody, but not mandate participation in it. Let the market decide on the private health care (most of which these days, I still believe will actively let a patient die over losing a couple bucks), but don't be killing off the poor with no insurance. We do, after all, need ditch diggers.

Oh. One other thing. For those who say there's nothing wrong with the current system (not meant to imply endorsement for government control), in the last 8 years of respectable employment with a major company, my insurance coverage went from 100% no deductible to 70% $1500 per person deductible. My pay increased an average of 3.5% per year while my insurance premiums rose an average of 11% per year. Doesn't take a Nobel laureate to do the math and see that in the long run, I would actually be paying my company for the privilege of working for them. That IS a broken system. I don't care who you blame it on, and I don't care if you're against national health care. That's all well and good, but don't tell me the current system is 100% honky dory. Especially if you're a public employee with guaranteed lifetime health coverage. If the litmus test of national health care is to make the members of congress subscribe to it, then the litmus test of the free market insurance system that we have today is to make all supporters, especially those with lifelong free rides, have to go out and find acceptable coverage at acceptable prices.

Believe me, I've never met an elderly person who was carrying a pair of pom poms so they could cheer for medicare. I get that medicare sucks and it is the example of national health care. I don't want that either. I do think something needs to change though. I do think that basic health care IS a right. Health is one of the basic standards by which a nation is measured. Plastic surgery might not be a right, but health care is. Something's got to be available for everybody. I really don't care if it IS Paco from the wrong side of the fence. Some things are just the right thing to do.

Edited May 3, 2009 by oldguystudent

LongJim · May 3, 2009

Must be some pretty horrific health care up there. I do think something needs to change though. I do think that basic health care IS a right. Health is one of the basic standards by which a nation is measured. Plastic surgery might not be a right, but health care is. Something's got to be available for everybody. I really don't care if it IS Paco from the wrong side of the fence. Some things are just the right thing to do.

If you're going to make me pay for it, then give me a dollar for dollar tax credit when I donate to the charity of my choice. Be that JPS, or Parkland. The government doesn't have the "right" to force me to pay not only for my own and my family's health care, but someone else's as well. Neither does Paco, or Edna, or anyone else because they feel it's their "right" to have basic health care.

UNTFan23 · May 3, 2009

The thing about all the other rights granted to us as American citizens is that it doesn't cost the tax payers any money. If we make Basic Healthcare a "right" in this country, it's going to cost a lot of people money. This "right" could quickly bankrupt this country if we get to a point where there are more people going with government sponsored healthcare than people paying into the system. This "right" basically will face the same problems Social Security will face when the vast majority of the Baby Boomers are in retirement.