LiveUninhibited

Recently? I know the VHA did a poor job prior to around 1995, but I read a book called "Overtreated" that said that in the last decade, the VHA has surpassed the private sector in quality and efficiency, partly due to VistA, changes in management, preventive care, etc.

Well if you don't make a lot of money, you would be paying less under government-funded healthcare because income taxes are progressive. It's not like we're adding government health insurance in addition to private health insurance, we are replacing private health insurance with something less inefficient, and less evil, as explained in other posts. In time, even the moderately rich would pay less for healthcare beacause of how much less we'd be paying for healthcare per capita under a single payer system.

Bartholomew Roberts

Actually, Britain and Canada have proved that national Healthcare is much less efficient than private care. Not only do you have to wait forever to get preventative treatment, but there is tons of paperwork to fill out. A national healthcare system would so badly marred down by government bueracracy that it would be more difficult for many people to get what they need when they need it. As for being evil, I can't argue against that, because "evil" is a relative term, and can drastically change in meaning depending on who you talk to.

I have to say, though that you are right about national healthcare replacing private insurance, I just don't want to go through all the red tape that the government will set up so that I can get my tonsils removed.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato

LiveUninhibited

Well I guess we may have to define efficiency then. To me, per capita expenditures combined with outcomes indicate efficiency. America does worse than other industrialized countries by these measures. What measure would you use?

It is not preventive care they wait for, it is largely elective procedures. For many (not all) of these surgeries, the benefits are dubious anyhow. If they really weren't getting life-saving procedures and preventive care, they wouldn't have better outcomes than America for less money. The only exception is cancer mortality, but America is in the middle of the pack there, not at the top, while it is at or near the bottom in other measures.

Though the UK has other problems, they are not fully relevant because they have public funding and delivery, I am only advocating government funding.

There will always be paperwork. Private health insurance companies don't spare us that, but under a simpler single-payer system I'd imagine there could be less.

Centralized funding with regional control may help with that, as was done for the VHA.

I was referring to private insurance companies keeping people's claims wrapped up in court until they die or go bankrupt. Every condition becomes a "pre-existing condition." This amounts to the misuse of sketchy lawyers to kill the people who paid them for insurance. To me, that is pretty evil.

Grez

I've got an idea, lets add more for the government to pay for, I mean Medicare will go bankrupt by 2020, social security by 2040. Seriously people, how can you expect to add another govt program to be initiated? You don't think. Thats why. You don't think of all the damn liabilities we already have invested in govt programs that we can't currently pay for. Social security is one thing, but Medicare is an entire different monster. Right now, no matter what, it can't be saved. It can't. Add in social security, if your my age, well plan on working your entire life. At least part time. Oh and I'm 28 years old

Grez

And by the way, this is no joke. At all, not one bit. Pretty much makes no difference in who is president.

Bartholomew Roberts

While I find the attitude behind this post a little rude, I have to agree with the basic premise of it. I'm 18. I have heard estimates that say I will have to work until age 70 in order to receive social security. Thus I have set up a roth IRA to start saving for retirement.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato

LiveUninhibited

The fiscal problems you refer to have more to do with increasing spending without increasing taxes. I'd point out that funding national healthcare would have been much cheaper than the Iraq war, but it too would have required a raise in taxes to avoid ridiculous deficit. Unlike the Iraq war, however, this would not be a net loss in income for most people, as they spend money on healthcare or health insurance either way.

For Medicare in particular, you should note that it is undermined by the government catering to corporate interests. For example, medicare cannot negotiate for cheaper drug prices thanks to Congress being on the pharmaceutical companies' payrolls.

As for retirement, people have unrealistic expectations. When people live longer than they used to, we can't expect to keep the retirement age the same without economic problems.

Bartholomew Roberts

If we can't handle rising costs in socialized retirements, how will we deal with rising costs in socialized medicine?

The problem with socialized healthcare is that it will only lead to more expensive healthcare costs, and cause our tax rates to continually climb. Think about it: If everyone can get the care they need because the government pays for it, people will only go to the best hospitals to get the best treatment. The less popular hospitals will die out because they get no business. This will lead to the really good hospitals having a monopoly in their area. Once this happens, they have no competition, and the quality of the service goes down while the costs stay the same, or probably even increase. We have already seen this happen with utilities in most states. My area of Connecticut is essentially the property of Charter Communications. They have a monopoly on television, internet, and phone service in our area. As a result of there being no competition, their service SUCKS. The same is true with the United States Postal Service. The USPS are a true monopoly, and we all know how much THEY suck.

So basically, any type of socialized healthcare is an economic disaster waiting to happen, and don't assume that the government can throw regulations on hospitals and make things all better. When they do that, the cost of service will only go up, as has been shown by the government trying to control the oil industry in America, and since the service will be socialized, it will run up tax rates for everyone.

This is why socialism does not work, and this is why any tye of socialized or government subsidized healthcare will not work.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato

Grez

Your noting of national healthcare funding would have been cheaper is my best argument. For how long? Had we taken back all those 5 years of war, add them into the healthcare benefit, how long extra would that give us? Thing is, it doesn't fucking matter. We can't afford Social security and Medicare is done for. I don't care for myself, I''ve already discounted social security as an option, but Medicare scares me. MY parents will be in that range in the next 10 years. And it will be on the verge of retirement. Medicare has been struggling for years, and everyone has known it.