Give me one reason....

[coldweatherfan]

Because, as far as I know, the government is not a for-profit venture.

 

What is wrong with a profit?

 

Most nonprofit organizations are inefficient, the ones I have been around have the spend it all and ask for more mentality. Profit based organizations are responsible to either themselves and their families or their share holders.

 

Why do you have such disdain for the people who produce and make all the things we have as a nation possible?

[Jim Schue]

What is wrong with a profit?

 

Nothing. It's just that the health care industry, as a whole, has a primary motivator of profit rather than the public good. With the government, while we both agree there are inherent problems with a government-run institution, I think we can both agree the public's well-being should be the motivation.

 

Most nonprofit organizations are inefficient, the ones I have been around have the spend it all and ask for more mentality. Profit based organizations are responsible to either themselves and their families or their share holders.

 

That's all fine and dandy for an automaker or an electronic goods manufacturer, and completely expected. But when the business in question is health care, answering to shareholders by necessity means customers suffer as operating costs are slashed.

 

Why do you have such disdain for the people who produce and make all the things we have as a nation possible?

 

Good try. My disdain lies squarely with the concept of greed and those who practice it gleefully.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Give me one reason why we should ever listen to anything from the government in regards to spending.

 

 

Simply because it's a change we can believe in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:puke:

[woodsrider]

Nothing. It's just that the health care industry, as a whole, has a primary motivator of profit rather than the public good. With the government, while we both agree there are inherent problems with a government-run institution, I think we can both agree the public's well-being should be the motivation.

 

 

 

That's all fine and dandy for an automaker or an electronic goods manufacturer, and completely expected. But when the business in question is health care, answering to shareholders by necessity means customers suffer as operating costs are slashed.

 

 

 

Good try. My disdain lies squarely with the concept of greed and those who practice it gleefully.

So you think that when someone decided to start an insurance company their number one motivator should have been the public good? Why should an insurance company be held to a different standard then any other company? Why not attack the hospitals for charging what they do?

[FC]

The problem with that argument is that the uninsured are still able to get healthcare through hospital emergency rooms, which substantially contributes to problems of overcrowding there. In essence we have a system concentrated into one sector. Would universal coverage not then disperse that concentration across the board? Furthermore, the logical end of your argument is that the US needs a large chunk of its citizenry to be uninsured to sufficiently serve those with insurance. I would say that is untenable on its face.

 

 

 

What are the underlying reasons as to why costs are high?

 

I’m not saying we need a large amount of uninsured. I’m saying universal health care run by the government will lead to overuse, increased demand, longer waits, and higher costs though taxes in the long run. Not to mention the government control and mismanagement that is evident in current government health care systems: Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, VA, etc… It’s about personal responsibility. If someone doesn’t have to pay for a service, they will most likely use/abuse that service more than if they had to bear some of the cost.

 

Roughly 85% of American’s have health insurance, should the entire system be taken over because 15% don’t?

 

The underlying costs are associated with hospital fees, insurance premiums, drug costs, doctor fees, government regulations, malpractice premiums, and consumer habits (overeating, smoking, etc…).

[coldweatherfan]

Jim Schue;3477329]Nothing. It's just that the health care industry, as a whole, has a primary motivator of profit rather than the public good. With the government, while we both agree there are inherent problems with a government-run institution, I think we can both agree the public's well-being should be the motivation.

Should is the operative word. I distrust politicians far more than I distrust businessmen. Politicians are by nature - leaches. Most are motivated by an equal or worse vice - POWER.

[Jim Schue]

So you think that when someone decided to start an insurance company their number one motivator should have been the public good? Why should an insurance company be held to a different standard then any other company? Why not attack the hospitals for charging what they do?

 

I avoid going to the doctor and/or hospitals by any means necessary. I never once said they should get a free pass from criticism, and noted above that the problem is a combination of factors. The fact that those varying factors all have their allies in government (also from varying points on the political spectrum) fighting against any change in the status quo is what makes this a far more complex problem than to just simplistically say "patients abusing the system is the problem" or "frivolous lawsuits are the problem" or "insurance companies are the problem."

 

They're all part of the problem. But the bigger dilemma may be the fact that to fix the problem -- and yes, health care in this country is a problem, despite what your ideological leaders are telling you -- somebody's gonna lose a lot of money, whether that be doctors/hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, lawyers, legislators, or the American public (and we're already chewing on a big bite of that poo sandwich). In my opinion, the most fair thing would be to make it a mutual, shared loss spread equally among all the interested parties.

[Jim Schue]

Should is the operative word. I distrust politicians far more than I distrust businessmen. Politicians are by nature - leaches. Most are motivated by an equal or worse vice - POWER.

 

You and I differ in that I think the business world and political world are equally sleazy.

[PepRock01]

Should is the operative word. I distrust politicians far more than I distrust businessmen. Politicians are by nature - leaches. Most are motivated by an equal or worse vice - POWER.

 

Which is essentially greed for power.

 

I also don't think that any motivation should be for "the public good" in anything that isn't charity. If you go by that logic then it will be grossly inefficient and frankly the overall costs for things like this aren't offset by the lives affected in my opinion.

[PepRock01]

I avoid going to the doctor and/or hospitals by any means necessary. I never once said they should get a free pass from criticism, and noted above that the problem is a combination of factors. The fact that those varying factors all have their allies in government (also from varying points on the political spectrum) fighting against any change in the status quo is what makes this a far more complex problem than to just simplistically say "patients abusing the system is the problem" or "frivolous lawsuits are the problem" or "insurance companies are the problem."

 

They're all part of the problem. But the bigger dilemma may be the fact that to fix the problem -- and yes, health care in this country is a problem, despite what your ideological leaders are telling you -- somebody's gonna lose a lot of money, whether that be doctors/hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, lawyers, legislators, or the American public (and we're already chewing on a big bite of that poo sandwich). In my opinion, the most fair thing would be to make it a mutual, shared loss spread equally among all the interested parties.

 

 

What of those that want no health insurance or coverage at all?

 

Should we not still have the right to say "no thanks, I don't want insurance" and not be penalized by the government for it?

[Jim Schue]

What of those that want no health insurance or coverage at all?

 

Should we not still have the right to say "no thanks, I don't want insurance" and not be penalized by the government for it?

 

If you don't want it, you should pay your penalty on the back end, not the front. If you get lucky, so be it.

 

I paid money for years into the insurance pool and have only rarely drawn from it. I guess the only thing I regret is not getting my money's worth out of it. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want insurance or some other sort of health care coverage (other than to save the $$). Had I pocketed the extra money all those years it was paid into insurance, I'd probably be dead.

[PepRock01]

If you don't want it, you should pay your penalty on the back end, not the front. If you get lucky, so be it.

 

I paid money for years into the insurance pool and have only rarely drawn from it. I guess the only thing I regret is not getting my money's worth out of it. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want insurance or some other sort of health care coverage (other than to save the $$). Had I pocketed the extra money all those years it was paid into insurance, I'd probably be dead.

 

Fact of the matter though, I shouldn't be forced to take it if I don't want it and I shouldn't be penalized for it either. Especially if I take care of myself, go to the doctor regularly AND pay out of pocket for it when I do go. In fact most doctors would prefer that because they don't have to worry about waiting on payments from the government or insurance.

 

The more I think about it the more I would prefer that the free market take its course and there be no coverage for anyone to subsidize costs. Without insurance companies or the government to haggle the doctors down below acceptable levels of compensation they wouldn't have to charge as much to those without insurance.

 

At that point they would be more directly able to compete with each other and thus drive down prices.

 

I feel that way about medical care across the board, the more they compete with each other directly the more prices would come down. It might be painful at first, but once equilibrium is reached it would be better for everyone.

 

 

http://www.healthcarebluebook.com/

 

Sites like that are a step in the right direction

Edited August 4, 2009 by PepRock01
Adding link

[coldweatherfan]

You and I differ in that I think the business world and political world are equally sleazy.

 

The difference is that the business world puts into the system and the political world drains from the system.

 

At some point, and we may already be there. There won't be enough people left putting into the system to cover what is being drained.

[coldweatherfan]

I avoid going to the doctor and/or hospitals by any means necessary. I never once said they should get a free pass from criticism, and noted above that the problem is a combination of factors. The fact that those varying factors all have their allies in government (also from varying points on the political spectrum) fighting against any change in the status quo is what makes this a far more complex problem than to just simplistically say "patients abusing the system is the problem" or "frivolous lawsuits are the problem" or "insurance companies are the problem."

 

They're all part of the problem. But the bigger dilemma may be the fact that to fix the problem -- and yes, health care in this country is a problem, despite what your ideological leaders are telling you -- somebody's gonna lose a lot of money, whether that be doctors/hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, lawyers, legislators, or the American public (and we're already chewing on a big bite of that poo sandwich). In my opinion, the most fair thing would be to make it a mutual, shared loss spread equally among all the interested parties.

 

That's called equal misery for all. This country was not founded on he idea of equal outcome for all. If you work harder, smarter, better you should have more.

 

If someone is not happy with their place in life. Do something about it. Personal responsibility for self. Fortunately we live in a country where that is possible.

[FC]

The difference is that the business world puts into the system and the political world drains from the system.

 

At some point, and we may already be there. There won't be enough people left putting into the system to cover what is being drained.

 

Isn’t that the current problem with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?