Sorry it took so long to get back to this... but here goes anyway!

quote:

I am not talking about the government looking over our shoulders into every aspect of our lives... C'mon man..

What I am talking about is exactly what happened when regulations are removed. Before there were regulations in the meat packing industry what did we have? Before there were regulations in the labor laws.. what did we have? When banking regulations were relaxed.. what did we get? That's what I am talking about when I saw we need government.. You can say what you want to .. but as I said.. when it comes to people's safety unless there are rules.. money is going to win out every single time.. Many of the safety regulations that we now have only came about after lawsuits.. like the Pinto gas tank.. the Corvair.. etc.. Case in point.. look at what happened in the credit card industry.. Do you remember when, if you were at the limit of a credit card.. you couldn't use it.. period.. it was denied.. Now thanks to changes in the rules over the last few decades the credit card companies will just give you the credit anyway.. and charge you a fee for going over.. and you don't even have the option to say.. "Please change this so that if I don't have the balance.. just deny me the use of the card..." Nope.. can't do that... The credit card companies set the rules.. and they do it so they can make money off you.. and that is just that one industry.. Say I cant afford the pricier medicine made by Phizer.. and I want to get the generic cheaper drug... in many cases... Nope.. cant do that... Why? Because the pharmaceutical lobby has bribed members of the legislative branch to make it illegal to do so..

That's what I am talking about when I say we need the government to protect us from us... When you make statements.. like the above, insinuating that the idea that I am espousing is somehow wrong or bad for the country.. that is exactly the kind of stuff that Fux news pounds into people's heads.. while corporate America laughs all the way to the bank at our expense..

BC, I think that the government's tendency to become more involved in our daily lives with each passing year is very well established. I think, that for many of the people on the right, the debate over health care is less about getting people care (polls show strong support for that) than it is about the proper scope of government intervention in our lives (with a side order of let's not bankrupt the grandkids). Every year we'll send a gaggle of congressmen and senators to capital hill, and by golly, we expect them to do something, don't we? Or might you believe that one day they'll open congress and decide that they've finally made all the laws that will ever be needed, and decide to go have a beer?

Not many people would want the sort of meat packing plants that existed before there were industry regulations, but consider the side effects of the regulation. Certainly, not every packer was guilty of the abuses that inspired the regulation, and it's just as certain that some meatpackers (good ones, as well as bad) went out of business for an inability to afford compliance with the regs. The regulations raised the barriers to entry into the industry, which strengthened the hands of the richest, most established, businesses (who no doubt had 'suggestions' when the regs were written and also when they were revised) which concentrated power and money in the industry further. In a sense, the regulation helped birth the very sort of companies you're claiming we need protection from. If companies that want to do the right thing are killed before they can get their gear up, who wins?

And, really, what sort of protection do we need? In the age when you can access the internet for customer reviews of everything from supermarkets to dentists, do you really need someone to shield you from bad decisions? Look at how you're preparing yourself to make the decision about a new graphics card. You're reading the reviews online and in print, maybe checking sites like Anandtech, and asking people whose opinion you value, and when the time comes, you'll sift all of that info and make a choice. And that works great!

Regulations aren't a bad thing, as long as they aren't manipulated for profit or advantage, or suspect ideologies. The banking mess we are in is a perfect example of what happens when government intervention in an industry goes awry. It is well documented that much of the housing bubble can be laid at the feet of perhaps well meaning congressmen etc who put pressure on lenders to make loans that any actuary knew would be risky. While there is room for reform on Wall street, to say the problem was a lack of regulation is missing at least part of the picture.

As you've pointed out, money wins over peoples' safety- but it's regardless of the rules! Regulations aren't a guarantee of safety. Think about it, for all of the regulation in the meatpacking industry, recalls are a regular thing. Some companies will do the right thing, always, and some won't, regardless of what the regs say. People make things safe or unsafe, by doing or not doing the right thing.

It's been shown that the more regulation there is, and the more complex the regulation, the less compliance there will be.

Give me less regulation, but give me better access to a companies' information- how they do things, what their record is, what their customers think, and let me look out for myself.

If more people thought that way, maybe we wouldn't have gotten into this mess. When I, a first time home buyer, was working out my mortgage with the lender, they asked if I wanted a adjustable rate mortgage. I had done my research and was pretty darn sure that rates couldn't go much lower, so adjustable rate had to be a bad choice. How many people took that ARM? How many people couldn't be bothered to actually think through what they were going to do? Enough to kill a bunch of banks. And the banks darn well knew better than to make those loans, but they were greedy, too, and none too interested in doing the right thing.

And that brings us to another problem with government intervention- TOO BIG TO FAIL. The banks that have survived this bloodletting should see the heads of the banks that took too much risk on pikes, and take that as their warning to not make the same mistake. But now we have effectively told the biggest, most powerful companies in the nation that they can take whatever risks they'ed like, because they're TBTF, and Uncle Sugar will bail them out on the backs of working stiffs. What sort of performance would you expect out of someone who didn't have to suffer the consequences of getting it wrong?


But, back to your original beef, with how Fox is doing the news. They sure as heck aren't doing Obama any favors. But honestly, he isn't doing himself any, either. (As for how Bush faired, I seem to remember the various other networks laying everything but Eve and the Apple at his feet. Not to mention made up stories like the one Dan Rather got his **** caught in the door on.) After all that Obama promised, he needed to deliver- at least on the things that were under his direct control. Things like not letting Congress stuff bills with pork, which he said he wouldn't do, but has now- how many times? Or not throwing allies like Poland and the Czech Republic- who went to the mat for us- under the bus. Or putting a ton of political pressure on Honduras for having the audacity to follow their laws and oust a President who was breaking those laws. Or appointing people of questionable background to government posts leading to a string of Friday night news releases about so and so stepping down. Or letting the Black Panthers off the hook on a charge of voter intimidation- a case that the government had won. Or government organized bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler that violated long established tenets of bankruptcy law. Or... or... or...

No, President Obama, by the very nature of his promises, his background, his policies, and yes, even his race, had a steep hill to climb with some people. There is no doubt that for people like that, criticism is quick in coming, and loud, too. And Fox is giving them plenty to gripe about, as the smallest thing isn't ignored. Is it fair? You know, speaking for myself, I'd rather that they back off a little on the rhetoric, but I don't think they're wrong for doing the reporting. And for the record, I don't have cable so I don't watch any of the bastards. But what I see of all of them- Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, HLN, CNN- makes me sick.

I think that we have grown as a society to the point where health care should no longer be somethig only for those .. with jobs.. IMO health care should be like police & fire.. and schools for that matter... While we still ave privater schools on all levels some that specialize.. say in music or religious studies.. we still have a public schooling option.. fopr those who cannot afford to send their kids to private schools.. We need the same thing in health care. IT IS IMMORAL FOR PEOPLE TO DIE IN THIS COUNTRY (anywhere actually.. but we are talking about here now..) BECAUSE THE CANNOT AFFORD ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE. It is immoral for something as basic and neccessary as health care to be tied to profits.. the bottom line should not be profits.. but good medicine. All those who are screaming that they don't want some government official dictating their health care.. sit and fume silently at the same insurance company underwriter who does the same thing.. It is easy to sit back and bemoan this when YOU have health care. people scream about "I don't want my tax dollars paying for the health care of illegal immigrants.." DUHHHHH.. they are here.. and what.. you think they don't get sick? You think they don't get injured? You think they don't get care.. Just go to any emergency room on a given night. People say the reason health care is getting so expensive is the cost of technology.. Well the cost of technology is being gouged.. It is cheaper today to make just about anything than it was 20 years ago.. and it is better.. from X-ray machines to MRIs.. amplifiers, speakers, computers.. all of it.. they just charge more.. A national health care system.. that works.. is doable in this country.. but no one wants to pay for it.. Everyone want's to have their cake and eat it too.. but the only ones who are actually doing that are big business.. They make the rules and they make them to favor them.. Credit card companies are a prime example.. all the pints I mentioned above.. [i]How come I do not have an option to simply choose how I want my credit/debit overdraft to work? Why cant I say to Capital one.. "If I do not have the balance deny the transaction.." Nope. or limit over the limit fees.. and then deny the transaction... Nope. And it is easy to sit back and say "Well people should be more responsible.. I am... " .. There are all kinds of reasons for things like this to happen.. but everything from health care regulations to banking and commerce favors the big guys..

OK I have a question. Lets say national health care passes and those with jobs keep thier private insurance. Now all the out of work people and those that want nothing to do with a job people flock to NHC. Whos going to pay for their insurance?

They wont be able to they have no money to pay for it. So who gets left with the bill to pay for NHC for these people. If you guessed someonr other then the middle class you guessed wrong.

I agree that to deny people healthcare is immoral. But while we're at it, so is denying people food or shelter because of their income, or lack of it. And what is offered in the government programs that address hunger or homelessness? Food stamps, homeless shelters, housing projects, food pantries, all of which address people's basic needs but won't have you living in style. Another huge government (1900 pages in the latest house bill proposal) program isn't the only way to solve the problem. Ba5tard5word posted a very good link about the health 'safety net' they have in San Francisco. It accomplishes the goal of providing health care to the needy, but is locally accountable and, amazingly, has come in well under it's projected budget. Programs like that are far better than what's being proposed nationally.

I have a friend who works in health technology, and as he tells it, prices aren't going down. Partly because technolgy is always advancing and many people demand the best, which prompts hospitals to try and be at the cutting edge equipment-wise. The older equipment is still functional, it's paid for, but the new model is no doubt better. One local hospital uses an older model heart scanner to offer screenings for $100 cash. It's not the best technology, but it's affordable and available.

But wrong to make a profit? Where do you think the money for new things comes from? New equipment, or therapies, research, drugs, where does the money for that come from, if not from profit?

You keep hitting the credit card companies, who are certainly no friend to their customers, but they are what they are. No one is forced to apply for credit cards, and if you don't like the policies, don't do business with them. A useful reform would be to limit the companies ability to alter their contract with you after the fact.

Banks, overall, are not there to be our friends. They are there to make money, and anyone who thinks different is always going to be supprised.

Sigh, more victim mentality.

If you are staying up nights worrying about the hordes of people dying because of no government healthcare, then consider this:

YOU opt in to the program, become covered, and have extra taxes taken out of YOUR paycheck to pay for your neighbor's coverage. Meanwhile, I will opt OUT and continue with my current plan, paying less taxes.

The "single payer" will be you my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
OK I have a question. Lets say national health care passes and those with jobs keep thier private insurance. Now all the out of work people and those that want nothing to do with a job people flock to NHC. Whos going to pay for their insurance?

They wont be able to they have no money to pay for it. So who gets left with the bill to pay for NHC for these people. If you guessed someonr other then the middle class you guessed wrong.

to answer your question, of course the public has to pay for those who cannot pay, in a national healthcare.
but you know, that under the actual system there is already spent more by public for medicare and such than under any other comparable system?

i have a question myself. how would you think of a system where overall per capita expenditure is only 40% of now, and public per capita expenditure is 65% of now?

i don't know, if this can be achieved by the new bill, or in which time-span. but that is how, in average, european healthcare compares to US-healthcare.
the funding systems in europe are different, for example the UK features tax-payed public healthcare, Germany and Netherlands have a compulsory insurance system. i don't think, the european systems are a happy go ever, and healthcare is always present in political discussion - but at least in Germany it is basically the same since 1883.

for comparison of expenditures:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
YOU opt in to the program, become covered, and have extra taxes taken out of YOUR paycheck to pay for your neighbor's coverage.

you already do pay more taxes for the pityful bit of care for some no-incomes than every other idustrialised country pays for all.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Meanwhile, I will opt OUT and continue with my current plan, paying less taxes.

there are several examples of universal healthcare systems with the option to have private insurance instead of tax contribution. all of them have less strain on public and all of them are proven to be more efficient and still delivering healthcare for everyone by the same high standards.

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
YOU opt in to the program, become covered, and have extra taxes taken out of YOUR paycheck to pay for your neighbor's coverage.

you already do pay more taxes for the pityful bit of care for some no-incomes than every other idustrialised country pays for all.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Meanwhile, I will opt OUT and continue with my current plan, paying less taxes.

there are several examples of universal healthcare systems with the option to have private insurance instead of tax contribution. all of them have less strain on public and all of them are proven to be more efficient and still delivering healthcare for everyone by the same high standards.

..... Deepo, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, your financial comparison depends upon an equality of care levels as a premise. Can you confidently establish that premise?

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
YOU opt in to the program, become covered, and have extra taxes taken out of YOUR paycheck to pay for your neighbor's coverage.

you already do pay more taxes for the pityful bit of care for some no-incomes than every other idustrialised country pays for all.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Meanwhile, I will opt OUT and continue with my current plan, paying less taxes.

there are several examples of universal healthcare systems with the option to have private insurance instead of tax contribution. all of them have less strain on public and all of them are proven to be more efficient and still delivering healthcare for everyone by the same high standards.

..... Deepo, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, your financial comparison depends upon an equality of care levels as a premise. Can you confidently establish that premise?

This is an international forum, just ask the people who do live under a NHS, they'll tell you what they've been saying all along in this debate, that there is equality of care and it just works, and for less money than we're paying now.

To expand on the idea of morality and healthcare...

BC, people who can't afford food get food stamps or WIC or participate in any number of programs which will keep you from dying of hunger, but you and I know that it isn't eating high on the hog.

People who can't afford housing can live in housing projects, places often run down and crime-ridden. It'll keep the rain off your head (usually) but we both know that it's a long way from having a white picket fence and a flower garden.

So why don't we set up those who ain't got to eat with lavish dinners and those who ain't got a place to stay with pretty little bungalows in a nice neighborhood? Two reasons. First, because we couldn't afford it and second, because the people who have to pay for it would riot.

But you're saying that folks who don't have the means to pay for health care ought to recieve the best possible care, everytime. (This is what I'm getting from you saying "No one should die for lack of ability to pay".) Why do you think this government program should be any different from the others that provide a safety net for people?

And, how you gonna pay for it?

Near as I can tell, the only way to ensure that everyone get the same, best, healthcare is to redefine what best is, to lower the bar. That way, we all get an equal-sized slice of the same crummy cake. But, at least it's fair, right?

And if you think I'm being facetous, consider that the Clinton administration, in violation of the law, refused Social Security to people who didn't want MediCare (they had their own means to procure healthcare they preferred) because they didn't want to create a two-tier system.

Urufu, from what I've gathered from talking with various people who live in Canada, Scotland, and England is that the system is good for urgent care, routine care, but maybe not so good at fixing significant chronic problems and embracing cutting edge therapies. It remains that I don't believe that I fully comprehend the reality of living in those systems. Just going on what I hear.

As ive stated before the first thing they need to do before and national health care is to go after the companies that charge in excess for their product.

Take prescriptions. Why do prescriptions cost so much in the U.S.? Why does it cost 800 or so dollars to stay in a hospital bed? (that doesnt include any thing else).

They need to figure out how to lower these costs first before they go after national health care.

quote:

Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
As ive stated before the first thing they need to do before and national health care is to go after the companies that charge in excess for their product.

Take prescriptions. Why do prescriptions cost so much in the U.S.? Why does it cost 800 or so dollars to stay in a hospital bed? (that doesnt include any thing else).

They need to figure out how to lower these costs first before they go after national health care.

Agreed 1000%, that would be actual health care reform.

quote:

But you're saying that folks who don't have the means to pay for health care ought to recieve the best possible care, everytime.

It's called "humanity".
Some people in here might wanna look it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
YOU opt in to the program, become covered, and have extra taxes taken out of YOUR paycheck to pay for your neighbor's coverage.

you already do pay more taxes for the pityful bit of care for some no-incomes than every other idustrialised country pays for all.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Meanwhile, I will opt OUT and continue with my current plan, paying less taxes.

there are several examples of universal healthcare systems with the option to have private insurance instead of tax contribution. all of them have less strain on public and all of them are proven to be more efficient and still delivering healthcare for everyone by the same high standards.

..... Deepo, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, your financial comparison depends upon an equality of care levels as a premise. Can you confidently establish that premise?

This is an international forum, just ask the people who do live under a NHS, they'll tell you what they've been saying all along in this debate, that there is equality of care and it just works, and for less money than we're paying now.

..... I'm sorry, Urufu, but how do people who live outside the US and have no practical experience of the US healthcare system know enough to make a measured judgement about how US healthcare stacks up against their levels of care???

From some statistics I've seen (like cancer cures and infant mortality) there in fact >>appears<< to be a difference in favor of the US, but I'm careful about arguing the point because the data I have been able to come by are rather incomplete.