Will democrats be foolish to try to resurrect the "universal healthcare "debate"" ? - Political Forum

Ygorl · 12-26-2006, 02:20 PM

I guess we'll see. Interesting this line: Liberals have this regrettable habit of increasing government control over institutions and sectors of the economy, then denying responsibility when their supposedly good intentions just exacerbate the problems

Rethinking Universal Health Care

David Limbaugh

Friday, Dec. 22, 2006

America has the greatest health care in the history of the universe, but the system is fraught with problems that are getting worse every day.

It has become so complex that prospects for significant reform seem bleak. But putting aside political considerations, the solutions might be simpler than we assume.

Liberals have this regrettable habit of increasing government control over institutions and sectors of the economy, then denying responsibility when their supposedly good intentions just exacerbate the problems.

We've seen this from the war on poverty and welfare, to education. But with blind faith in their failed prescriptions, they always demand heavier doses of the same poisons: government money and control.

In fact, just last week, a news story reported, "As Democrats prepare to take control of the 110th Congress, a new approach to health-care reform is expected — universal coverage."

Imagine that. The electorate sent Republicans packing in November, due, in part, to their unbridled spending proclivities, and now Democrats believe they have a mandate to spend recklessly greater amounts. (We tried to warn you about the dangers in "throwing the bums out," just to replace them with bigger bums.)

There is a method to the Democrats' madness, however. The same news story reveals — disturbingly — that "a majority of Americans would favor government intervention." The good news is that the majority is not yet behind wholesale "government-run health care."

Then again, Democrats have not yet revved up their propaganda engines. If you think they shamelessly demagogued President Bush's noble efforts to reform Social Security, just wait 'til they get the chance to demonize anyone courageous enough to propose reasonable, market reforms to health care.

John Edwards will probably resurrect his "two Americas" stump speech. John Kerry will tell us that if it hadn't been for Bush's war for oil everyone would be covered. Al Gore will say that Bush's refusal to surrender America's car keys to Kyoto has intensified global warming, which has made us all sick and health-care costs skyrocket.

Bill Clinton will say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Hillary will say, "Yes, you did. But if instead you had put more energy into my health-care reform plan, I could have run (and won) in 2000 instead of that idiot Al Gore."

Rethinking Universal Health Care

Tumbleweed · 12-26-2006, 03:01 PM

Thane

It looks like you covered the whole spectrum from healthcare to Bill Clinton.

I don't look for Democrats to take on the healthcare crisis full speed ahead. I'm thinking they will take subtle approach of picking certain parts that they think will be popular issues.

It's too big of an issue to tackle head on for either party.

Ygorl · 12-26-2006, 04:13 PM

Crisis ? IS there a "crisis" ?

America has the greatest health care in the history of the universe.

.... Or in the history of Earth at least, but there's a "crisis" ?

Lets consider the words of a writer:

The vision of the anointed (self congratulation as a basis for social policy)
Thomas Sowell
BasicBooks
1995

Pg. 5

Despite the great variety of issues in a series of crusading movements among the intelligensia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.

2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.

3. A need for govt. to drastically curtail the dangerous behaviour of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.

4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

We see this from a LOT of liberals that interact online.

Pg. 8

A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

Stage 1. The "crisis": Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a "crisis", even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years.

So, healthcare in America is now characterized as being in a "crisis" situation.

Stage 2. The "solution": Policies to end the "crisis" are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result "A". Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result "Z". The anointed will dismiss these latter claims as "absurd" and "simplistic," if not dishonest.

The "solution" is "universal healthcare" yes ? This will be paid for HOW ?

Stage 3. The Results: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result "Z".

"Universal healthcare" has failed, and hopefully will CONTINUE to fail to be implemented. Unless everyone in America wants higher taxes and much poorer access TO healthcare. So we haven't yet experienced the detrimental result(s).

Stage 4. The Response: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitible damage from other factors.

Yes, of course. If the socialists had their way we'd have universal healthcare. Anyone that complained about the long waits, high taxes and poor performance or any of the other problems with it would be dismissed as a simpleton. Thats how liberalism works. You point out how poorly their ideas function when applied to reality and you're "simplistic" and probably not very smart or educated.

Tumbleweed · 12-26-2006, 04:19 PM

If you are uninsured there is a crisis. There are a lot of folks who lose everything they worked their whole life for because they can't afford all the insurance it requires for long term care.

Ygorl · 12-26-2006, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

If you are uninsured there is a crisis. There are a lot of folks who lose everything they worked their whole life for because they can't afford all the insurance it requires for long term care.

So my own personal little tragedy should affect EVERYBODY then ? It's not MY "crisis" it's EVERYBODIES "crisis" ? My lack of planning and making good choices is a "crisis" for all ?

Have you taken the time to read all of # 3 ?

Let me guess. You'll dismiss it as too "simplistic".

Tumbleweed · 12-26-2006, 04:36 PM

Every man for himself.

Great theory, but not practical or realistic.IMO.I think we are too compasionate to just let people suffer for the sake of taxes.

francois60 · 12-26-2006, 04:39 PM

Universal health care is a winning issue, if the plan benefits more Americans than it harms. And therein lies the rub. You need to craft a plan that gives the median American the same level of service he gets now with the same level of cost. I'm not sure it can be done. Which is why the best route is probably just to subsidize poorer Americans and let the middle class and rich continue doing what they are already doing.

Otter · 12-29-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Universal health care is a winning issue, if the plan benefits more Americans than it harms. And therein lies the rub. You need to craft a plan that gives the median American the same level of service he gets now with the same level of cost. I'm not sure it can be done. Which is why the best route is probably just to subsidize poorer Americans and let the middle class and rich continue doing what they are already doing.

We'll see. It seems to have worked reasonably well in other countries (given advances made in Europe and Japan, I'm not sure that the US can claim 'best high end medicine' without contest. If I had a child with a brain tumor, I'd want to go to Japan for treatment). Of course, these places have socialized financing (for everyone), not socialized medicine.

One thing that would be a disaster would be true 'free market' medicine, where anyone who dosen't pay receives no services. Public health is a form of herd health, and your chances of illness are not independent of your neighbor's. If we were to allow the poorest section of society to go without medical surveliance, vaccinations, etc, then they will act as a disease resivoir and epidemic breeding grounds. However you feel about medical care for the poor in a civilized society, that is clearly not a desirable situation. Now we have a sort of socialized funding for the very poor, and highly legislated insurance for everyone else. It works OK, for most people, but there are gaps.

If taxes were increased by no more than what you allready pay in insurance (including the pay raise you would get if your employer gave you what they pay for your health insurance), then why not have socialized medical funding? There would be no gaps, It would follow from job to job, seamlessly, and it isn't as if you get to pick you insurance provider when you are insured through work, anyway.

emptypepsi · 12-29-2006, 01:53 PM

It seems that it's not healthcare we are discussing. Healthcare is what one does for themselves -- that is, caring for their health. Generally, not many are doing that today. When you go to a hospital/clinic for drugs (which are not good for you body, slice it however you like) that is more like 'sick-care'. We do have a healthcare crisis, but it's in the hands of society to fix, as evidenced by many chronic health issues caused by lifestyle problems. Government nannying people through massive amounts of sick-care will not fix the issue, only mask the symptoms of the problem (ala Nyquil and allergies).

So we can implement a system that covers people when they want to go to the doctor anytime they feel like for problems, even when they are better off fixing on their own through lifestyle change, but it won't make that person any more effecient at his/her health-care nor will help society as a whole. Much of this is the end result of a society apathetic or flat out uneducated in regards to their own health and wellness. We should be looking at ways to become educated to prevent ways to go to the doctor rather than ways to make these trips more cost effecient. I believe society would benefit more in the long run that way.

francois60 · 12-29-2006, 02:15 PM

We'll see. It seems to have worked reasonably well in other countries (given advances made in Europe and Japan, I'm not sure that the US can claim 'best high end medicine' without contest. If I had a child with a brain tumor, I'd want to go to Japan for treatment). Of course, these places have socialized financing (for everyone), not socialized medicine.

It worked in other countries because people were poorer and didn't already have a high level of care. Especially in Europe, which was recovering from war and Europeans barely had food, much less medical care.

In the US in 2006, most Americans get quality health care. If you're going to change the system, it has to be in a way that doesn't increase the costs, reduce the service, or decrease the choices Americans have. I don't think it's possible, frankly. We can get to universal care by subsidizing the poor, but there's simply not enough support for any kind of single-payer system.

If taxes were increased by no more than what you allready pay in insurance (including the pay raise you would get if your employer gave you what they pay for your health insurance), then why not have socialized medical funding?

Because that would reduce service. Currently, 250 million Americans receive good care for X dollars. If you spend the same money but cover 300 million, then the quality of care for the other 250 million drops.

You can't cover everyone without spending more money. Which is a bad deal for those already covered.

Now there are ways to get to 100% of the population being covered, but we're going to have to be creative. The Canadian system ain't gonna happen. the German system might be feasible. Or just expand Medicaid to cover everyone making under say, $35,000/yr.

There are other, more creative ideas out there as well.