Tea Party march on Washington / Single Payer healthcare

[Evil Hamster]

You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.

We can have this one of two ways based on your preferred interpretation of "socialist". Either, you can claim that those things (fire, police, military, road-building) are not socialist, in which case you cannot continue to call the public insurance option socialist because it requires about the same level of government intervention and public ownership; alternatively, you can claim that the bill's proposal is socialist because it involves redistribution of wealth to "those who do not deserve it", but you must then accept that these things are socialist as well because they involve redistribution of wealth through taxation in order to fund public projects, the benefits of which accrue to all, even those who did not earn it, and not just the taxpayers.

Why are they different? You are not offering up any convincing argument, and until then you can't have it both ways.

Actually after thinking about things some more, I'm starting to be convinced the healthcare plan being proposed is more statist than socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

That does not change the fact that police, fire, roads, etc are NOT socialism. I don't even understand how you could confuse a public service with redistribution of wealth.

Also- the FACT that government control of your lives from cradle to grave represented by the healthcare bill is unconstitutional hasn't stopped the debate at all. If it's so good for the people why doesn't the government attempt to change the Constitution through the mechanisms built into the Constitution for that change? Could it be that the majority of Americans oppose the facist government power grab and they know it would never even come close to flying? This whole debate is fueled on the government side by lobiests, special interests, mega-corporations that all stand to profit or gain power and opposed by the population. You can't find a single corporate sponsor for the Tea Party movement because it does not exist. It is 100% people fighting for their own future and their childrens benefit.

In my opinion he's not going for the best option, since the GOP are forcing the Democrats to make a compromise. Ideally you'd be looking at Universal Healthcare, not some half-hearted insurance-based option. Unfortunately that's not possible in the US's political situation right now because there are far too many crazies dominating the discussion. There is a public mandate for the democrats to push public healthcare, but they seem to be completely lacking in the spine department.

LOLOLOL GOP is forcing something? Seriously, thanks for the laugh! The elephant in the room is the republican party has ZERO power in Washington right now. They don't even have enough seats to filibuster a vote. The problem is the democrats know this bill is BAD BAD BAD and they will get dumped out of office as fast as they got in.  The whole blaming republicans thing is because they want to pressure enough republicans to call it a "bi-partisan" bill so their party won't take all the blame for it.

[Uzra]

In my opinion he's not going for the best option, since the GOP are forcing the Democrats to make a compromise. Ideally you'd be looking at Universal Healthcare, not some half-hearted insurance-based option. Unfortunately that's not possible in the US's political situation right now because there are far too many crazies dominating the discussion. There is a public mandate for the democrats to push public healthcare, but they seem to be completely lacking in the spine department.

There a lot of 'crazies' distracting from the truth (glen beckians).  However the bill does propose that insurance companies can not refuse people for a pre-existing condition.  Now here there IS a problem.  If you can't be refused for a pre-existing condition, then why get insurance?  You might as well drop out and only get insurance when you get sick.  Imagine if the same were true for fire insurance.  You'd wait till your house burned down (if it did at all), pay one month premium, drop out, and get a new house.  If everyone could do that, then everyone would.  Thus I see no incentive for anyone to have health insurance if the bill passes since they can just get it after a condition manifests.

So what will happen is,
Insurance companies will be forced to take people with preexisting conditions.
Which will cause a lot of people to opt out of insurance.
Which will increase the number of uninsured.
Which will increase the cost of insurance (since companies will have to pay out a large amount of money relative to how much money people who sign up with urgent preexisting conditions - thus shouldering the cost on everyone else).

Also on the bill is legislature to make age-discrimination illegal (already the case in some states).  So a 20 year old athlete will be charged the same as a 60+ year old.  Which, of course, the 60 year is very happy about because they are being subsidized by the young.  But then, of course, the young are not happy with that because they are paying a disproportionate price relative to the risk they are actually taking. Sot hey are subsidizing the risk of those who are in a higher risk category; the elderly.  So the young will drop out since it's not, at all, a good deal for someone who is 20 to pay as much as someone who is 60.

So the combination of all this will increase the price and decrease participants.  Both of which effect the other so that it compounds.  Eventually people will argue that freedom doesn't work (because of the consequences of these restrictions on freedom for the insurance companies).  And then from this (false) premise they can logically argue that one needs socialized medicine.

Notice I'm not arguing against, or for, the conclusion (that socialized medicine is, or is not, good).  Only that this particular reasoning, while logical, is and will be based on a false premise.  (free market doesn't work --> need to socialize - actually it was never free market.)

[Uzra]

I disagree, mostly because I think you're missing insurance covering accidents or emergencies, not just ongoing conditions. You presumably would be unable to backdate claims prior to taking out the policy.

Pre-existing condition could be anything from cancer to aids to a bad back to a damaged spine.  Back-dating fees might be impossible (probably, but still a maybe) but the real cost that insurance is for is for long term medication, ongoing conditions, and expensive treatments.  

Opting out of insurance on that premise is gambling that you'll never get hurt, which is kinda stupid.

Most people don't have accidents all that much, not nearly enough to warrant insurance (at least not for those of us who aren't in high risk situations like stunt-men and extreme sport athletes).  It's only stupid if you stand to gain, save $$ on average, from insurance.  If you stand to lose $ from insurance, ono average, then it's smart.  Going back to the young paying the same as the old (paying for the old), it's clear that the young, for the most part, will stand to lose from this alone.  How many accidents have your parents been in from 20-40?  It requires quite a few to break even with insurance prices nowadays.  It will require even more when the price goes up to pay for the old.

am i right in assumeing you think this is a "sneaky" way of introducing universal healthcare? your post hints at it.

Yes, sneaky sneaky.  But this has no correlation with my stance on how health care ought to work.

If so, can i ask what is wrong with manipulating people into going along with your idea if your idea is what is best for the people? People will always argue for what is best for them, if they have power over your decisions or the way people think, i dont see any other way of getting round them. Besides it is always best to keep the people on side, even if it is by manipulation (as long as your doing whats best of course. I would hear your thoughts on this.

Hell no It's not O.K...  Either people can follow the same logic and reason as you did to know that it's better for them, they are not amenable to reason, or it's not better for them.  Assuming that it's true or false means there's no question and moreover there never was.  That would be dogma.  Assuming people aren't amenable to reason would mean that some people shouldn't have the right to vote but since you subscribe to democracy you can't follow that premise either.  I think you're stuck with people care and are capable of understanding what is good for them.

Would you care to take this opportunity to explain why it is better?

[Uzra]

I dont subscripe to democracy quite honestly, I prefer meritocracy as my form of ideal goverment style.

The idea that goverment is based on popularity (eg: democracy) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Also i do believe some people either dont care, or can not understand why something is good for them. Which is why they either will never change their view on a subject or change their view to agree with the last paper they read/what their best mate said is right ect without any evidence or even reasonable argument.

I would be pleased to hear the debate for popularity over merit. (the debate of who or what decides merit may be a big factor, if it is i will endevor to do my best to explain how i see it in my next post.)

I can't be your opponent as Personally I'd say the problem is at least partially democracy. And you're right about people.  But I'd also say that those who are capable but not willing to inquire or listen and reflect deserve what they get.  Problem is they don't just hurt themselves, they bring those around them down as well.  Whatever the best solution is, it's non-trivial.

[Uzra]

I agree, if there is a long-term solution, it may well take too much time and or work to ever get implimented.

Can i ask how you do think healthcare should work?as you never mentioned earlier.

Well It depends where we start form.  Am I allowed to make major major changes to everything? Or just health care?  Many problems can't be entirely fixed at all under any circumstances.  We can only do the best we can.  Sometimes we can't even do the best we can because other problems which have not yet been dealt with get in the way...

On the one hand, doctors in general will do whatever helps them the most.  Which could range from unnecessary tests and treatments to accepting bribes from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe more and more drugs even when not necessary.  On the same hand, insurance companies are out to make money, not to lose money.  For that to happen more money has to go into the insurance company than goes out.  In this sense it's not at all different from a lottery or casino game.  A lottery secures this by setting the odds in their favor.  Insurance companies can't set the odds but since the 'pay outs' and 'odds' for each condition are relatively fixed they need only set the prices high enough for the game to be in their favor (and it must be in their favor or they'd go out of business).  Do we say it's wiser to play the lottery 'just in case'?  Why do we say it's better to have insurance 'just in case' if in both cases the game is, and must be, fundamentally rigged?

As far as insurance is concerned I believe it's better to save, and save A LOT! However this 'solution' isn't perfect because of the fact that money loses it's value consistently due to government spending and also due to government and bank printing of currency.



On the other hand, removing all fear of having to pay for your own medical bills is dangerous.  One reason is because it's one less reason for people to not eat that deep fried mars bar.  If not for the extremely high cost of medical care, I'd say we all, in general, ought to pay for our own medical needs just like we pay for our own phone needs, and our own energy needs.  If the price of health care was affordable, I mean really really affordable, then there wouldn't be a problem.  So why is the cost of treatment so high? If we could lower it to a fraction of what it is wouldn't we solve the problem?

Dealing in a world were we can not change that treatment costs are ridiculous and we are practically forced to have insurance I'd say single-payer health care is the wisest choice although not flawless.

Living in the real world, where we can lower the price of treatment by completely rebuilding the law, and we can make saving money a wise choice by removing the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking I'd say aim for that first.  In a sense, we are in a Chinese finger trap.  If we pull our fingers away form each other (make medical treatment more and more socialized) we will partially accomplish the goal of increasing the distance between our fingers (increase overall health of the population somewhat).  But if we really want to set our fingers free (increase health, happiness, and security of the population to their relative maximums) we have to first inspect the situation as a whole and notice that we need to move our fingers closer together first (change, abolish, and/or add laws).

[various-guises]

But gambling on not getting hurt is what a lot of people do already. This could quite easily be abused in the way urza describes.

posted by urza

So the young will drop out since it's not, at all, a good deal for someone who is 20 to pay as much as someone who is 60. So the combination of all this will increase the price and decrease participants. 

This is dangerous guesswork. While im sure its correct in relation to many people. Very sure in fact, If i was in charge of the project i would be thinking about this as something to minimise, but i would not go so far as to say it will be a big problem as long as all the avenues are covered. Media "manipulation" alone could minimise any potential pitfalls such as this.

also by urza

Eventually people will argue that freedom doesn't work (because of the consequences of these restrictions on freedom for the insurance companies).  And then from this (false) premise they can logically argue that one needs socialized medicine.

Firstly for that to be true we would need to be sure that your correct in all your assumptions. Also you are guessing at what people will do (while you may well be correct again). But you are correct in that if they argued from that specific standpoint, with those paramiters, that it would indeed be a fallacy of logic.
So while you are correct in pointing out this would be wrong, am i right in assumeing you think this is a "sneaky" way of introducing universal healthcare? your post hints at it.

If so, can i ask what is wrong with manipulating people into going along with your idea if your idea is what is best for the people? People will always argue for what is best for them, if they have power over your decisions or the way people think, i dont see any other way of getting round them. Besides it is always best to keep the people on side, even if it is by manipulation (as long as your doing whats best of course. I would hear your thoughts on this.

[various-guises]

I agree, if there is a long-term solution, it may well take too much time and or work to ever get implimented.

Can i ask how you do think healthcare should work?as you never mentioned earlier.

[various-guises]

I dont subscripe to democracy quite honestly, I prefer meritocracy as my form of ideal goverment style.

The idea that goverment is based on popularity (eg: democracy) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Also i do believe some people either dont care, or can not understand why something is good for them. Which is why they either will never change their view on a subject or change their view to agree with the last paper they read/what their best mate said is right ect without any evidence or even reasonable argument.

I would be pleased to hear the debate for popularity over merit. (the debate of who or what decides merit may be a big factor, if it is i will endevor to do my best to explain how i see it in my next post.)

[Belthus]

A couple of videos from Sick for Profit (http://sickforprofit.com/):

[Belthus]

Another scientific poll:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Sept. 29-Oct. 5, 2009.

Code: [Select]

"Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered
by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private
plans?"
 
    Support Oppose Unsure  
    % % %  
 
9/29 - 10/5/09 61 34 6

[Belthus]

I am curious about where Evil Hamster gets his talking points. Like the one about the US having the best health care in the world, and Canadians hating their system so much. About 35% of the US lives in a parallel universe created by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the right-wing think tanks, and right-wing opinion magazines and blogs.

[Belthus]

Polls are very dependent on wording. It's best to give the exact question wording so we can interpret what the responses mean.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 19-23, 2009:

Code: [Select]

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a
government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare
coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health
insurance plans?"
 
    Favor Oppose Unsure  
    % % %

9/19-23/09 65 26 9That's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.