So it would suck, right?

[averygoodun42]

So what?

Here's an article in favor of a poorly-run, government offered health insurance plan (in favor, that is, over what we currently have).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090827/ts_usnews/thecaseforpostalstylehealthcare


(And as for paying for it? Well, that's the crux of the matter isn't it? Dems believe it's a fundamental right, Reps just want to balance the budget, and screw the poor.)

Comments

[millennia2.livejournal.com]

Reps don't want to screw the poor. Look, the poor don't have to pay taxes yet they get medicaid, subsidized housing, social security payments, etc. Who pays for that? I do. I'm not well off by any means. I barely have enough to go around and pay for my own family's health care. Sure we all want good health care but if we have universal health care, the quality will go down. It's all about supply and demand and fair market. Once you tell doctors how much they can charge, the quality of care and availability of care will decrease (what doctor wants to work for next to nothing while still having huge medical school loans to pay off and insurance premiums if someone sues them?). I'm not a Republican or Democrat...I'm an Independent who is tired of paying more than my share. :)

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

And that's exactly what the insurance companies want you to believe. If you look at the evidence given from countries that do have universal health care (whether nationalized, socialized or otherwise), you'll see that is NOT the case. The only thing that might change is wait times, and that doesn't change for urgent situations, and, in fact, might improve because the hospitals won't be pestering you for insurance info while you're bleeding/writhing or...*ahem* waiting in the ER. And the wait times won't change as drastically as the fear mongers will have you believe.

We pay to live in a civilization. We ALL pay, rich and poor alike (the poor, if they are working, pay for medicare just like you do. If they aren't working, they need all the help they can get). If we don't help the poor with this stuff, it drags society as a whole down, as can be witnessed by the economic collapse we've just suffered. The less difference there is between the poorest and the richest, the more stable the society. That isn't a statement of support of communism or other drastic measures (because inequality can be fought in non-totalitarian ways), it is a statement of fact.

[millennia2.livejournal.com]

By the way, I don't want you to take my comment in the wrong way. I've had a very long week and am emotionally exhausted. I'm not trying to be cranky or sound insincere. It's just the way I see it. Have a good night.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

I'm right there with you, exhaustion-wise. ;-j I hope you get good rest tonight!

[droxy.livejournal.com]

I am acutally in favor of a plan to regulate insurance along the model of phone service, and auto insurance.

Insuance companies and medical companies are capped at 5% profit, or they can be non profits. (still not govt run). Through the existing standard creation process (govt organzation called ANSI), develop a core set of standard products (like telecommunications). One such standard package is basic. Everyone is required to get basic, just liek everyone is required to get basic auto insusrance.

health insurance cost alot becasue it covers every little thing. What about health insurance that covers the big nasties, with no deductable. But if you have acne or a cold, you pay out ofpocket for these much cheaper high volume procedures. That lowers cost because the docs don't have to deal with overhead, and they can still operate their practice independently. Since everyone has basic, and the piddly stuff is removed...health insurance and catastrophic care becomes a lot more affordable for everyone. By having the 5% or non profit standing, it removes wallsteet pressures from corporations and that gets rid of the greed factor. Guess what, if you run at 5% profit, and you have a standard product that everyone else sells, you have to improve efficency.

make HC insurance national, portable, and remove pre-existing condition restrictions.

I say give regulation a spin first. its a working model and very efficent.

If the folks are poor, the govt or state govt or charity can provide the basic plan for them.

In that you comment that all republicans (lets add me in as a quasi libertarian) want to screw the poor, I would say all democrats want to do is take away all my money and make me poor. Sounds obsurd when it's stated that way. Why am I a hard ass. I see this adminstration issuing legislation (not HC, but PACT) that will wipe out entire businesses and increase unemployment- that's bad, real bad. It's democrats eliminating those jobs, not republicans. What would you say to those people when law wipes out their job? You are not important, find another job? The democratic controlled govt will make them poor but screwable material for republicans- such a nice circle. The same congress also told me when I had job issues I wasn't important enough (I have the letter and I should post that). Frankly, jobs are a bigger issue than HC. Becasue sick or not, if you dont have a job you lose everything. The same govt that said I wasn't important enough along with 4 million outsourced hi tech folks, is now the same govt that wants impose more rules and taxes on me and increase unemployment by removing rights. To that I say no, I want a differnt type of HC reform. Because if I wasn't important enough then, I really sincerely feel I will not be important later. But I am important now.

I prefer to give to charities. I think people who want to offer free care should donate money to the shriners, an excellent charity that runs free hospitals. The constitution does not dictate HC as a right. like or not, that is true. HC is not a right by the constitution.

I also think there could be a website charity to match up direct funding of the poor's insurance. Why not? The money would go directly to helping those who need it with little overhead, and the givers know the getters are getting insurance. The politicans GET NOTHING. Which to me is perfect, becasue I am not important enough.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Honestly, if I thought it would last for more than two years, the profit cap would be perfect. But greed wins out every single time in this country.

I didn't quite mean that Reps are out to screw the poor, but that they say to hell with the poor. After all, that's what charities are for... (And yeah, that works so well, too, especially in poor areas.) Ignoring, of course, that the poor are a part of society and therefore part of society's fiscal responsibility.

HC is almost central to the job issue, btw. It's one of the main reasons the car companies went under (well, that and bad management bc they thought they had it made with gov. contracts and such) and why small businesses are not making it all across the country. Geoff works at one of those small businesses, and we pay $630 a month for half-way decent health insurance. That's half the premium, meaning that for thirty some employees, the company is paying the insurance company about $21,000 a month (And the insurance company is getting $42,000 p/mo) so that they (Geoff's co) can be competitive in the benefits game.

Yeah. That's a healthy economic model. Free-market for the win.

This is about big business (not just the insurance industry, mind) wanting to keep their profit margins high and their competition low. And employment would stay about the same (if not go up) because all the viable insurance workers would find jobs in the government bureaucracy.

Oh, and as for the constitution not saying it's a right? It also said that black men counted as only a fraction of a citizen and it said nothing about women's suffrage. Does that mean it shouldn't have been amended to reflect progress in civilization's views?

[droxy.livejournal.com]

The constitution didn't need amending for civil rights. It's in there. Women's sufferage actually didnt need to be in there. The reasons those amendements exist is to trump laws that were created such as jim crow laws- that should not have been made in the first place. Jim Crow laws are unconsitutional, before civil rights. They never should have been made, or allowed to be made. Its one thing to say we are equal under the law. Its another thing to say we have the right persue opportunties...none of these rights requires taxation, or a czar. There is no country where everyone is a financial equal. Even under communism, there was not total equal distribtuion of wealth. You still had classes. Classes have been around since humans formed groups.

Healthcare, even education (libertarinan here) are not rights.

My arguement is the same to anti abortion people. If you beleive it should not be allowed, then you get on list to adopt those unwanted kids. Its also called walking the talk.

If someone can prove to me it is the govt job to provide everything to everybody, I want to see it.
'
Today it's health care. Tomorrow it's what? Computers? Cars? The people may not have those either. Is it a right everyone have a computer?

Home ownership? Is that next? I have to now subsidize home ownership and computers because people may have entered into professions that don't pay, dropped out of high school, made bad personal decisions, not lucky, had the govt outlaw thier businesses. When is a right a right and not a right. Where does it stop?

Physics tells us matter is neither created or destroyed. To provide for someone who doesnt have X you have to take from y. Its a natural law. Matter does not create out of thin air.

Look at the census data and where you fall economically as a family. If youare above teh 50% line, expect you will take a 20% hit on your income. Since greed is such a factor, I will bet wages will not go up with govt HC. Due to the history of suppressed wage. The bill is designed to do half the job of regulation. The employers if they have a plan are still paying for it. What the govt does is it limits the rate of increase, and sets job classifications and wage structures for HC providers.

Thomas Jefferson said the govt that can give you everything you want also has to the power to take everything away.

What about my right to not have my rights removed? My rights are constitutional rights.

Jobs and benefit costs. I go back to my point on insurance benefit creep, and non profit status and regulated profit. I dont think non profits like salavation army and ASPCA are greedy. I will say UNITED WAY is. Slash that benefit to catastropic emergency and big items only. It takes us back to the 70s when all of this was more affordable, and wages were high.

There was a post in another Lj asked, why don't people with health issues emegrate to countries that provide this style of care? It was posted by someone from France or the UK. It's a good question. Because people keep trying to come here, despite our 37th WHO ranking. It's a damn good question. Why here, why come here? Is it because they want to keep more of the rewards for their work? No one is forcing these folks here. I don't see an exodus to these countries with the HC promised land. Interesting question, I can't answer it.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Oh for fuck's sake, Droxy, you are making my left-wing nut-job paranoia look like child's play. The US is not about to turn into Marxist Russia.

The right that health care (and education) fall under in the constitution is the right to pursue happiness. The mere pursuit WILL be denied if those are not easily and equitably accessible, just like all the other rights that needn't have been actually listed but were denied anyway because people are narrow minded arseholes without any compunction when there's a profit to be made or a sin to be reviled.

The government is there for the people by the people. It is there to try and protect us from berks like King George (Brit or Bush) who want to limit our freedoms (one way or another). It is NOT de ebil incarnate.

Get over yourself.

And I suspect that Canada's population is going be growing in this next decade. People won't be able to afford life here in the US. I hope (and am working) to move there next year. The propaganda is out there that this is the land of opportunity, but the reality is starting to get out. It's the land of corporate enslavement and feudal poverty. We are fucking house-elves, only we're Dobby. We say we want to be free, but we can't endure the thought of not having someone to serve.

And any Brit will tell you that our English is crap.