Bizarre Health Care Reactions

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I know it sounds crazy - letting fire departments be run by firefighters, letting hospitals be run by doctors, letting roads be maintained by engineers - but what sounds crazier is letting a few people with experience in none of those things, run those things, with no consent on behalf of the governed and no actual incentive to do a good job.

As the son of a civil engineering professor and contractor, I can tell you that the government doesn't do a terrible job of staying out of the way of engineers building roads. If you have shitty roads, it's because you have shitty engineers. The federal government may pay them (partially) and set base guidelines, but agencies like the FHWA and NHTSA don't really have any overarching sway over the actual building of roads.

My guess is that fire departments are handled somewhat similarly.

[Jerome Scuggs]

We recently had an extension built off of I-20, connecting to a small but wealthy gated community (da hamptons of the south, werd). 20 million bucks to save a few hundred people ten minutes on their route into town. Usually I would protest because land is generally taken by force, with eminent domain laws, but in this case it was purchased, for ten million dollars, from someone who oddly enough lived in southern trace.

14.4 million came from state funding, and is probably the reason my university's library now closes two hours early and stays closed Sunday. .6 million came from you guys.

When you have the state maintain all these things - on a limited budget - then compromises have to be made. The new interstate extension was completed just in time for budget cuts to be made across education and healthcare. In effect, a few hundred people benefitted while contributing to the detriment of the rest of the state. And I don't think I should have to make this point, but this sort of thing happens all the time. In all cities, on all levels of government. Billions have been misdirected - for reasons and people good and bad.

Right now, while attention is focused on it, a healthcare plan may even work. But years down the road? With a republican in office? With a war consuming money and resources? Or other, unforseeable conditions arise? Though free market healthcare is susceptible to market forces and limitations, government healthcare would be subject to political ones. And while economics, though complex, can be understood - political decisions, in terms of the market, can create absolute chaos. You are taking a vital service from the hands of the people and subjecting it to the whims of politicians. Supply has always been supply, demand has always been demand, but the "public interest" changes daily. From a supply-side viewpoint, you simply never know what may happen - why plan for the longterm?

The government will never allow it to work. There is no way to guarantee that bill - none. The very fact that this bill has come this far shows that fact, because it is unconstitutional on just about every facet - and yet that is the one thing that noone really discusses. FDR tried to pass the New Deal, had it rejected by the Supreme Court - so he packed the Court and MADE it legal.

No businessman, no matter how rich, can change the law. He can avoid it, ignore it, but he can never re-write it and say "see, I'm not doing anything wrong!". Yet there is a class of people who do just that, and you want to give them oversight of healthcare.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Oh, I should probably clarify something. If I held a gun to your head and said "mow my lawn", would you say that you mowed the lawn of your own free will?

The government doesn't "run" healthcare - they are not mowing the lawn - but they regulate and legislate nearly every facet of the industry. You may say that what insurance companies are doing is bad, but you have to remember that what they are doing is following every law that Washington has cooked up so far.

[DoTheFandango]

I was born a boy of moderate values and a "fuck it" personality. All my life I was told to never hate a human being, to never harm a soul, and that no single person is better than another. I used to be interested in politics, as I was interested with video games as a young boy. A never-ending game it seemed, arguing over points that have been argued for decades.

But it seems that the other side is no longer a formidable opponent. They aren't the people that would go out and shake your hand after a long game, but rather the ones that would blame it on the referee and spit on their hands before they lined up.

I think, at this point, it's best to give up on those that impede us. Do you realize we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care? Do you know that a majority of the health care system is already funded by Uncle Sam? With a single payer system we could cut out the corruption and the lobbying that runs this country, the greediness displayed by the likes of Exalt and Kthx will be pushed aside for a greater good. A greater good.

[Squeezer]

I know it sounds crazy - letting fire departments be run by firefighters, letting hospitals be run by doctors, letting roads be maintained by engineers - but what sounds crazier is letting a few people with experience in none of those things, run those things, with no consent on behalf of the governed and no actual incentive to do a good job.

sounds sort of like socialism.

[Jerome Scuggs]

A majority of the current healthcare system is funded by Uncle Sam? According to Mattey, the government plays a small role. Are we replacing a failed market with a government model or streamlining bloated beauracracy into pure socialism?

[DoTheFandango]

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes

[kthx]

Rofl, look at that soap opera post that DTF just made, "a great good people, a greater good". A greater good for what, more control from the government on our lives, forcing us to buy health insurance even if we are healthy and fining us for not having it at a price more than the health insurance costs. How about the fact that the current Administration is in bed with the pharmaceutical company and they are funding his campaign to push through with the health care plans. Who stands to make money from this, you say it is a way to get rid of all the corruption from lobbyists when instead or is just exchanging money from one lobbyist to the other, give me a break. It isn't even like 90% of the medicine that is given to people is needed and just tends to make them worse off in the long run. Once everyone in America has health insurance imagine how many more cases of depression there will be, how many more cases of ADHD in kids will there be, just give everyone tons of drugs that change their mood, behaviors, and personalities into being a fucking zombie. Yeah thats what is good for this country. The greater good for this country, I had to repeat that to let it sink in as if this is some form of clever writing.

Oh and look at the horror stories of the terrible socialized health care systems around the world causing extremely long waits for surgeries, treatments, or even to see a doctor. Now imagine that with our population and you will see that you are a fucking moron if you want this to go through.

[Xog]

what's the difference between whining about politics on the forum and whining about weasels/levis?

nothing, cuz kthx bitches in both of them! harharharhar

[Jerome Scuggs]

so as I see it now, both sides claim to represent 'the people' and their interests. which is a clear indication that none of you know what the people want. or what your definition of 'people' means. i'll tell you what the people want: the 2010 camaro.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

We recently had an extension built off of I-20, connecting to a small but wealthy gated community (da hamptons of the south, werd). 20 million bucks to save a few hundred people ten minutes on their route into town. Usually I would protest because land is generally taken by force, with eminent domain laws, but in this case it was purchased, for ten million dollars, from someone who oddly enough lived in southern trace.

14.4 million came from state funding, and is probably the reason my university's library now closes two hours early and stays closed Sunday. .6 million came from you guys.

When you have the state maintain all these things - on a limited budget - then compromises have to be made. The new interstate extension was completed just in time for budget cuts to be made across education and healthcare. In effect, a few hundred people benefitted while contributing to the detriment of the rest of the state. And I don't think I should have to make this point, but this sort of thing happens all the time. In all cities, on all levels of government. Billions have been misdirected - for reasons and people good and bad.

Alright, but if I'm reading this right (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong--we're cool), your gripe lies with, order of "gripiest to least-gripiest":

1) Lobbyists
2) Louisiana State
3) The FHWA
4) The US federal gov.

I mean, by your implication, the reason the road was built was to allow McMansion residents quicker access to another part of town. It was built off an interstate, and therefore a generally state-owned road (although the FHWA would maintain it's consult on it's safety and the small amount of monetary aid listed). So the "glass half-empty" conclusion (which sadly, is generally right), is that someone with some spare change fed the right palms of state and local people to get the thing built.

It's a local thing, not necessarily an "evil of big government." You should be pissed at your local authorities, and not take it as some indictment of how "government can't be trusted to do anything." That's pretty cynical.

Yes, government can be corrupt. You're right. But to tear down the entire institution because it's not completely perfect is to buck the spirit of what I believe this country was founded on: a prospect that our union was not perfect, but has the chance to constantly change itself for the better. If you don't like what's happening, you can change it from the inside. It isn't ever going to be a giant sea change, but it does get better.

Is that pie-in-the-sky enough? Alright, it's a little lofty, but that's what we're missing. We have a nation nearly half-full of "I don't trust the government!"-people, but very few who actually do the mental work to change it. There are a few who are modern examples. For instance: I didn't vote for Ron Paul, but I think he has some really good ideas. He's also working to change it from the inside, which I admire. He's also pretty good at conveying his thoughts to a decently-wide range of individuals, which is also pretty admirable.

Anyway, this is how I think it breaks down for me:
This first step with any government intervention in the health care system is going to be rocky, but it's at least a baby step in the right direction.

[Mattey]

Jerome, do you think hospitals should be for-profit?

[Jerome Scuggs]

IN that example, the gripe order would probably be spot on. But you can replace Mr. McMansion at the state level with Mr. Pharmacy, Mr. Insurance, and Mr. HMO at the federal level. You can bet all three support the current bill, as it sets them for life, in our lives. If they fail, they will be privelege to subsidies and bailouts. (by the way, wall street has already found it's loophole - they are now packaging securities and selling them off. Instead of houses, it's life insurance. I'm calling that bubble now, for the record)

If I had to list my tolerance for state activity, it would resemble your list: if anyone is going to make choices for me, I think the local-er, the better. It's the best shot at accountability.

Before the Sherman anti-trust act, there was no such thing as business monopolies - the term was used specifically as a term for government monopolies on power. We seem to have forgotten that. A government monopoly is a monopoly, and unless you'd like to argue in favor of monopolies, I think we can agree that such a centralized program would not function efficiently.

The baby-step intervention might have been Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO act - we've taken several baby steps, at a cost increase of 8% per year in medical expenses.

Massachsetts' universal healthcare program has also seen a yearly increase around 8%. they recently proposed rationing and price controls in a stab at containing costs. Paul krugman, Nobel winner, stated during the Clinton era that healthcare couldn't be done cheaply - then again, that dude is an idiot so maybe he's wrong, but since then he has reversed his position, so I don't know which version of idiot Krugman to trust.

In my view, such programs would theoretically function best at the state level, but the Massachusetts model has the same problems as the federal interventions to date. If it couldn't work on a small scale, how would forcing it on the nation cause the opposite effect?

Of course, entire other countries have sustained healthcare nationalization, though I'm not sure of the means. If a particular system is 100% funded by taxes, then I would be interested in such a model. On the other hand, if the system is funded in part by credit made avaliable by the US's huge selling off of debt, then these systems depend on the value of US dollars to remain strong... which I see as highly unlikely.

Hospitals and insurance companies are profit-and-loss industries, no matter what else is said. At best, this reform would create an effect similar to the chain of events leading to the housing bubble. Prices and the pricing system is an incredible phenomenon - so much information is communicated via prices, and a system that destroys the ability of producers and consumers to accurately read prices and make adjustments risks massive and systemic failure, given the inability of producers to adequately make long-term decisions. Further discussion would lead to the nature and cause of the business cycle, though, so I'll save it.

So basically, if there must be government-run insurance then I would want it taking place at the state level, so at least states could compete. I would argue though that had states' rights been properly recognized, then there would never be a crisis in which people clamored for centralization.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Jerome, do you think hospitals should be for-profit?

I almost answered this, and then caught myself. I will answer in a roundabout way: if I were to run a hospital, I would charge my patients. Would someone else? Ask the CEO of St. Jude's.

I don't have a particular stance on how hospitals should be run, only on how mine would be run. If you figure out a way to run a nonprofit hospital, then I would support it 110%. The only thing I ask is that my money isn't taken by force from me to do it. (I'm not going to say I donate money to st jude's, because right now I can't afford it. But I know people who donate more than their share to such places).

[Exalt]

I was daydreaming about roads and I had a random thought: roads are in fact ridiculously expensive and take up alot of space. Cars do nothing but create pollution. In short, very inefficient... which is why the government runs it.

I think had the country had stuck to principles, the landscape would look so much different. People would have used railroads more (which private companies could and did build), as well as air travel. Less pollution per person, less taxes per person, more useable land... but hot damn, we had to have roads. It seemed like a good idea, at the time.

Railroads huh? Well I guess you never studied history much, or you would have realized that 99% of the railroad lines across the USA were funded by the government. They gave away free land and free money to the railroad companies so they could build lines all over the place. They confiscated private land away from people so that the railway lines could be built hassle free wherever we wanted them.

So technically, if we stuck with principles, then we wouldn't have a railroad either. That being said, at the time the many railroads were finished, the United States was the #1 industrial country in the world, and 2nd place was not even CLOSE. We were also the richest country in the world.

What happened since then? Lots of things, including the great depression. One thing that europeans need to understand is that their continent was in complete ruins because of WW2. There WAS NO economy in Europe after hitler fucked everything up in both western and eastern europe. Guess who funded your rebuilding projects, and guess who never paid us back? We gave you money and sent our engineers to your cities and helped you, and you never gave it back.

For someone from Holland for instance to be proud that their country is rich, well go fuck yourself and pay us back, and I'm sure you wouldn't be rich anymore, and I'm sure we wouldn't be in debt anymore. So for the most hated country in the world, we sure did help you out beyond what was ever necessary for you to survive. We won the war, and then we fixed your countries after the war. Oh wait, I forgot... we shouldn't be the world's policemen or peacekeepers... we should sit back and do nothing just like we did in WW1 and early WW2. The problem with that is that then we would have to save you again from another fucked up dictator that you would rather suck his dick than stand up against.