20090802
Universal Health Care
I’m sorry, but I can’t support Universal Health Care (as currently envisioned). It creates an open ended liability for the taxpayers with no control over future costs/liabilities. I’ve already seen enough of the social abuse of entitlements to know that universal coverage without a REAL DECREASE in the cost of health care is a huge mistake (future cost). We need to decrease the cost of health care by decoupling the market motives behind health care. Being healthy and living forever have infinite value. People will do/pay anything to be healthy and live long (the value is infinite!). The health system needs to be a regulated utility. It needs to become detached from the legal and insurance systems which feed off of it. If we could achieve a true reduction in medical costs, universality would be assured. The best way to provide coverage/availability for all is to make it affordable. Congress is headed down the wrong path and a brief reprieve from the legislative process might result in clarity of thought.
… but I’m not holding my breath.
Hooda Thunkit said,
August 5, 2009 @ 1407
Joe,
But the proposed plan IS liability limited.
When you reach a certain age, depending on the ailment you are seeking medical care that you are expecting to receive treatment for, you are declared “shovel ready,” no further treatment available/necessary/economically feasible.
You are expected to “suck it up” and die…, for the betterment of the collective…
You understand that now, don’t you comrade?
(Welcome to the new Amerikan Health Care System, thanks to lord obama and the other elites. . .)
JMZ said,
August 5, 2009 @ 2055
I think you need to get off of your exclusive diet of ultra right-wing talk (or is it whine) radio fiction and get a good helping of reality. I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
Hooda Thunkit said,
August 7, 2009 @ 0127
Joe,
I get it from listening to and reading from several sources.
And then I think about it, discard the BS and make up my mind.
Ask yourself this question:
If you were able to go anywhere in the world to seek treatment for something your socialized medicine country couldn’t or wouldn’t provide adequate care for, which country would YOU pick?
And, it the US turned to socialized medicine like many other countries already have, where would YOU pick then?
Sure, the US has the best and most cutting edge medical care. That’s why everybody comes here when their coutry puts them on waiting lists that are more like death sentences…
And just what do We have going for us that socialized countries don’t?
Capitalism! It’s what everybody bitches about, but seeks out when they need it and can’t find it in their country. Capitalism is what made this country great.
So when the Obamanation that is our current president socializes medicine here, where are you going to go for desperately needed medical care?
And, how much are you willing to pay for Obama-care when it comes time to pay for it?
I am in the 70% of Americans that are completely happy with their current medical care and I would bet that you are too. . .
So why change it, just to put everybody on the same mediocre socialized plan, that nobody will like?
JMZ said,
August 7, 2009 @ 0949
I get it from listening to and reading from several sources.
And then I think about it, discard the BS and make up my mind.
Funny, I do not see the work “facts” in there. Without facts, how do you know that your process isn’t actually “make up my mind, discard whatever does not support that view, and make-up/accept stuff that does support it”?
As for the rest of your line of inquiry, my answer is it would depend.
I’m not happy with the current plan either, but I do not call it something that it is not simply for the scare/shock value. I think a regulated (like the utilities still are in many states), yet free-ish market is the right way to go. The solution must span the health care, pharmaceutical, insurance, and legal industries. We need to get the costs down. Universality will follow from there.
Hooda Thunkit said,
August 7, 2009 @ 1059
Joe,
Then we’ll just have to wait and see what comes of this current and proposed mess.
Your optimistic view is commendable.
My view is based on what historically happens when Gubment gets involved.
In either case, time will tell. . .
sasamat said,
October 18, 2009 @ 0806
>>I’m sorry, but I can’t support Universal Health Care (as currently envisioned). It creates an open ended liability for the taxpayers with no control over future costs/liabilities.
I would like to respectfully suggest that’s really not true. Universal Health Care is implemented in every other industrialized nation in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
The toxic combination of out of control tort law, self-interested insurers and conflicted MDs means that wealthy Americans have worse health and life expectancy than working class Brits, and their system is notably worse (albeit amazingly cheap) than what’s available to the French, German, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, etc… http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/17/2037#AUTHINFO
The silly fear-mongering about death panels and other paranoias is clearly refuted by the data. If being shoveled off this mortal coil (or at least denied advanced care) the day a person turned 75 was really true, the life-expectancy results would show it—but in reality they show the reverse. All the ‘machines that go ping’ in the world don’t help when its the system that is broken. Outcomes in Canada are the same or better than in the US http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1 yet the overall cost of US medicine is 50% higher and a great crowd of unfortunates have no coverage at all.
This current US healthcare situation is a fascinating example of the Stockholm Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome Nothing will materially change and Providence and Kaiser Permanente et al will no doubt continue laughing all the way to the (blood) bank.
JMZ said,
October 18, 2009 @ 1645
sasamat,
Then we basically agree. I’m not against universal health care at all, however, mandating universal medical insurance coverage must be balanced by reducing the costs. Many of the items you yourself refer to (control tort law, self-interested insurers and conflicted MDs, and more) need to be a part of the total package. My point is this, without those other things this legislative fix can only increase costs. You should read my other post More on Health.