Its stunning how many of you don\’t get it. You whine about your taxes going up and reflexively condemn any plan put forth to address what thinking people recognize as a fundamental problem…We cannot have people in our society unable to access basic healthcare. Whether its cause they\’re poor, lazy or employed by a cheapskate, etc. Everyone is entitled to basic healthcare. Not heart transplants necessarily – but standard healthcare like control of high blood pressure or diabetes. Yes, we will all have to pay for this. We all have to pay for schools, too. Its part of life in a civilized country. I\’m sure some moron will suggest anyone who feels like I do move to Sweden. I admire such wit, but the days of \”me-first & screw everyone else\” Republicanism are winding down.
Having been in this business for a long time,here we go again.For all you \”old timers\”,there was state fund,which now is an out of controll bureaucracy[even \”big\”john had to sue work comp to be under the controll of the DOI]and unaccountable!Then there is the \”fair plan\”,limited coverage and nobody asks the question,why do wealthy hollywood types and real estate investors buy property in Malibu and expect the California taxpayers to subsidize it using the fair plan?Finally,\”cheap goverment car insurance\”,a complete bureau was set up and the plan failed.Lastly,the state invloved in medical insurance?Who are you kidding?
Socialism is not the answer. Think freedom, free markets, incentives, rewards, opportunity, choice, etc. I don\’t look forward to standing in line with millionaires and vagabonds to see a Doctor (or less) assigned to me by the Government.
We have to do something to fix the healthcare system. There is no way around paying additional taxes to do it and in the long run if it helps to cut down on the unpaid bills to doctors, hospitals & emergency rooms isn\’t it worth a few more dollars? I think everyone is open to other suggestions……..
We really have to move past this whole \”free market is the answer to everyting\” idea. I have read several of the postings here, and it\’s definitely a recuring theme. We have had free markets for a long time, and there are 40 million people that can\’t pay for basic care. And these are not all vagabonds. We have to think outside the box to solve what is rapidly becoming a huge problem. If you get sick and don\’t have insurance, what do you do. Well, you either die or you go to a hospital and then don\’t pay the bill. What good does that do our society. It\’s real easy when you have a job with health insurance to not care about those that don\’t. As I\’m sure I\’m about to get hammered with \”why don\’t you move to Russia\” or \”that\’s socialism, and that\’s not how we do it here\”, I\’ll do a premptive defense. Do you not realize that more money is paid for emergency care than having a doctor to go see regularly. As much as people on this site want to deny it, we pay for things one way or another, and the free market doesn\’t answer all the questions. What about police forces and national security. Why don\’t we turn that over to the private sector as well if it\’s so much better? I mean, forget the compassion piece, just think about the money we already pay to subsidize people that never go to a doctor but instead go to the ER when they have a problem.
I think that this is indeed a good idea for all states to ponder, and once all states are on the boat possibly move to a federal level. If this were to happen, although taxes may be higher I would take solice in the fact that I now have something tangible for my tax paying dollar that is there when I need it unlike Soc. Security or fighting for what I don\’t know about now overseas! Actually, I think that is is a good turn for the US as a whole to take, in the direction of its own huddled uninsured masses.
AZUW, I have no doubt the governor’s plan will be enacted in some way shape or form so let\’s see if it saves money or creates an enormous out of control bureaucracy. If it saves money I\’m all for it, but I\’m extremely skeptical. And it\’s not easy to maintain a job and provide health insurance for yourself, your family and the uninsured. It is easy to be unemployed and uninsured and then get a freebie from the Gov. That\’s easy! It\’s not that we don\’t care but enough is enough. It goes back to the incentive idea, what incentive do the unemployed/uninsured have to get a job and get insurance. If we keep providing it for them there\’s none.
I agree with your statements AZUM. Scott prefers to sit in his cubicle and pontificate with his blinders on obviously unaware of the reality that surrounds him. Something needs to be done to reverse and/or correct the mess we are in (due to the free market).
I provide for a family of four. We don\’t have life insurance because I can\’t afford it. Want to help me out with that Bob? What\’s the cost to society if I die and my kids become wards of the State? Following your logic isn\’t this your problem too?
With all the complaints about a failing free market, why not let the pendulum swing the other way and provide everything through govt subsidies. That way we can spend less in the free market and have absolutely no say in how high our taxes go to provide for the masses. With enough people paying all these wonderful taxes, we should be very well taken care of! Or at least the politicians will be.
Oh, for God\’s sake \’free market\’, noboby is saying we should change the United States to socialist nation. Let\’s have a rational, grown up conversation. The free market is obviously not working on health care. I know, I know, the free market can walk your dog, mow your lawn, and give you a warm, fuzzy feeling at night. But, here\’s the deal…we all need health insurance. And if the supply and demand curves cross at a price where 40MM people can\’t afford it, there\’s a problem. It\’s not like this is going out and buying a car. Not everyone gets to drive a Mercedez, not everyone gets to live in a 5,000 ft2 house, and not everyone gets to take a vacation every year, but health care is NOT THE SAME. For way too long, we\’ve all been about looking out for #1. Whether you want to belive it or not, we all live here together and everything and everyone is affected by everyone else. I\’m assuming you hate welfare. And that\’s fine, but the numbers show that crime rates and costs associated with healthcare are lower in areas with comprehensive welfare programs. And I don\’t care how much money you have, it\’s all for naught if someone car jacks you and blows you away. Providing BASIC services for the whole of our population may cost some money in the short run, but the benefits in the large run are huge. We have to start somewhere. The health carriers can still share in the premium and the costs of health care, they may just need a little help for the government, and yes, that means you and me. You may not like it, but again, you\’re going to pay one way or the other, so you might as well pay up front when maybe we can save some on the back end.
AZUW lets state a few facts regarding gov\’t responsibility to its citizens. You mentioned privatizing police forces. The gov\’t is here to protect and defend the citizens, however aren\’t there gated communities with there own police force? But why? Secondly we must have regulations and standards to set a somewhat even palying field for all involved. Ie. SEC EPA and of course the FDA etal. 40 million people have chosen not to purchase health insurance. How many of them own ipods and cell phones and cable tv and …. I could go on and on. Whether you want to admit it or not, that doctor or drug that saves your life has a cost attached to it. Please name me one business the government is in that competes with the private sector and delivers a better product, service or value than the private sector.
Ah, glad I stuck a nerve AZUW! I don\’t disagree with you, just frustrated about the cost of the delivery system! I don\’t hate welfare for the ones that deserve it, just the abuses it takes, same as every other social system we have. Seems like no one is willing to follow the intent/spirit of the systems and say \”no\” once in awhile. Any plausable solutions you care to share?
Milt (my condolences to your family, albeit belated),
Fantastic exaggeration. So, the 40MM people without health insurance made a choice not to have health insurance? How do you know that? I think you\’re right, health care should be the first thing someone buys, and then they can worry about food and shelter after that. So, then I guess the security guards at those gated communities are better trained than police offices because private industry does a better job. Who is your security guard, Chuck Norris?
I know it\’s a popular belief, but welfare isn\’t as abused as everyone thinks it is. I wish I could remeber the number, by very few people stay on welfare longer than 2 years. Now, once you hit that mark, you\’re usually on it for a very long time, but that the excpetion, not the rule. The problem with any program that helps many is that its easy to abuse. You could make welfare very difficult to abuse, but then many people that really need it, wouldn\’t be able to be helped. I know it\’s not a popular view, but look, we don\’t pay enough in taxes, and have way to much stuff here. I think the top tax rate when Eisenhower was president was like 91%. I\’m not suggesting we gouge the rich like that, but the money has to come from somewhere. We\’re all going to have to pay more as much as it sucks.
I agree that the rich should not be gouged, just pay the same percentage as the rest of us (sounds like socialism, doesn\’t it). I don\’t see any solutions you proposed other than paying taxes. Sure hope you like crossing that bridge in Alaska (opps, that was defeated, wasn\’t it?). Maybe welfare isn\’t abused, how about social security or the miriad other programs? Burns my hide when the politicians can produce all that pork & no one seems to care or correct it.
I graduated from IU in 1997, and I have to tell you…I take a little offense to your comments. IU has many, many, many schools that are in the tops of the nation. Before I went to IU, I attended a little engineering school, and feel that I have a fine degree, from a fine institution. To address vouchers…they don\’t work. I\’ve never been employed in the field of education, but I know from friends and families they don\’t provide the educational advantages that you\’re talking about. If, for example, the annual tuition of a private school is 10,000 / year and the voucher is for 3,000 / year, many parents still can\’t afford to send their kids there. What tends to happen is that kids with wealthier parents get a benefit from what is essentially a coupon, and poorer kids from the inner city or from rural America are still out of reach. Since vouchers are publically funded, they take away essential money from public schools and throw money into the hands of people that have more than enough money to send their kids to private school anyway.
The point that RNR makes about admittance is important too. It\’s easy to say you have a superior school if you only let in the smartest. If you have to take all or most, than SAT scores are irrelevant when discussing the ability to score. Either way, the example is app to show that in certain situations the whole free market, capitalism doesn\’t answer all questions. And, further, there are certain situation where a result is too important to be left up to a concept that puts profit above all else.
Holy crap again. All these threads and no one is upset that the Terminator wants to provide health care to all illegal aliens, too??? I don\’t mind doing something for our own citizens, but how the hell do we take care of all those who come here illegally? Name me one other country that would allow an American to enter illegally and then bestow all the riches of its citizens?
You cannot compare the two because the intended ends are different. When the private sector gets involved in any industry, they are obviously looking to make money. In order to do that they have to make tough choices and are given an incentive (profits) to find cheaper and better ways to do things. And on that piece, they would be much better at providing the services to some or most of the public. The government ends are to protect its citizens, all of them regardless of the price. Take for example national security. We spend 400 billion / year on that. Don\’t tell me that some company couldn\’t swoop in and provide the same protection for half the price. Now, that might involve not giving soldiers what they need to protect them, and it might involve out-sourcing our intelligence to India, but they would make it work. The deal is that there needs to be this particular product for all. You don\’t have to take the private sector out of the business, you just subsidize them in order for them to maintain a profit and continue to employee what I\’m sure is thousands upon thousands of people in the state of CA. So to answer your question, you have to decide what you want out of the process.
You can\’t name just one industry? In your reference to national defense, who builds all the machinery from bullets to B-1 bombers? Wouldn\’t it be cheaper if we cut out the middleman?
You\’re asking an impossible question. I\’m not a socialist, and I\’m not trying to say the US should be a socialist country. Of course the private sector is more efficient than government. That was never my argument. But, if you goal is to provide everyone in the country with health care, the standard supply and demand curves don\’t work. They work in the sense to maximize profits and charge the legitimate market price for a good, but AGAIN, this is not a product that we should be letting people go without. This isn\’t a high end car, this isn\’t a big home, this isn\’t a 2 month European vacation…this is basic quality of life stuff. We\’ll have to just agree to disagree. You think the free market should be the rule and if people can\’t afford health care at the price that gives a profit to the industry, screw \’em. I think that we all need to pitch end to make sure everyone has it.
I am a free market capitalist. There is no question by my comments, however you are in denial about your socialist leanings. From Meriam Webster – socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Is that not what you are advocating? And here we have capitalism – an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. I emphasize private decision. We are living healthier and longer than at any other time in the history of the world. Our health care system is the best in the world. Yes, it can be expensive, but it is still a choice and that is what I am advocating is choice, not a bureaucracy.
There\’s really no point to going on with this. You\’re not reading my postings. Again, I\’m not denying we have a good health care system (in quality)…Again, I\’m not advocating broad socialism in our industries….I\’m going to say this one more time as simply as I possibly can…
This is not a question of who can provide a more efficient, more profitable system. It is a question of soul. Every citizen of this country should have health care. That\’s the premise of my argument. Your\’s is that capitalism is better than socialism. You\’re not arguing the same issue I am. I know capitalism is better, but if we have to inject some socialism in our health care system to cover everyone, then so be it. I don\’t mind paying extra in taxes to give the lazy, drunk bum coverage or the 5 year old with a single mother that works at Denny\’s.
Not everyone shares your assumptions. Let me be brutally honest: I DON\’T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS \”ENTITLED\” TO GOOD HEALTHCARE. There, I said it, and I feel better. AZUW, the current system is not a free market system. It is regulated and controlled. Regulations forc up costs, as when hospitals are mandated to provide service to anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. The rest of us end up paying for that bit of legislation when we have to cover the unpaid bills. If hospitals were allowed to deny service costs would be lower and care more affordable. It would cause pain in the short term, but in the long run we all benefit. You disagree, but it\’s true. Guns are cheaper in Somalia because there\’s no regulation. The trick is finding a happy medium and I\’m afraid you are straying too far towards regulation.
The crux of the problem is that you believe the simple act of being born entitles you to various \”rights\”. Let me refer you to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those documents initially guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They were frameworks put in place to allow people to pursue personal dreams while government did the heavy lifting of external defence and limited internal organization.
People like you have perverted it. Now, this country believes that everyone should have everything all the time, and that\’s simply not feasible. An earleir commenter asked how many of the \”working poor\” have cable and cell phones, but no healthcare, and that\’s a legit question.
If you really are a single mom working a single shift at Denny\’s there are government programs (including health care) to help you. I know- my wife and I were forced to use them for a short while. If those programs aren\’t enough, get another job- I did. You\’re not guaranteed the good life or happiness- your only guarantee is the right to pursue them as you see fit, so long as you do not harm another human in the process. It\’s not easy to gain those things you want? Tough Shite.
First of all, when did I say anything about illegals. I have never once made an argument that illegals should have the same privleges as citizens. I don\’t believe that, and I have never advocated that.
Mjolnir,
We apparently have different definitions of happiness. If your pursuit of happiness does not include getting medical attention when you need it, so be it, but I disagree. And you\’re absolutely right, we do have a sense of entitlement in this country unheard of nearly anywhere in the world. We can get terrible gas mileage if we want, we can develop any part of the country that we want, we can live in a 10,000 ft2 house if we want. I don\’t equate those things with going to the doctor when I get sick. You\’ve indicated here that not everyone gets to have health care, and that\’s that. Fine, that\’s what you think. I believe differently. We\’ll have to see how the CA experiment works out. Massachusetts went first and so I imagine we\’ll see if this kind of programs has merit within the next year, albeit on a much smaller scale.
By the way, I\’m not a waitress at Denny\’s, that was just an example. I\’m an insurance underwriter. I have always had health insurance (well except for a bad year in 2002).
AZUW you are getting closer to the truth. \”Some socialism\”, is a good start for you. There is a difference between health care and health insurance. Hospitals can not deny health care to any individual when a life is threatened. To provide health insurance to all by the government is socialism. Medicaid is the insurance solution for those who qualify. For those who do not qualify, it is up to them to purchase health insurance, and if they do not, then they will be buying health care at their own expense. It is their choice. Instead of paying more in taxes, why don\’t you pick a family and buy their health insurance?
Keep an eye on Chavez & Venezuela to see how the socialism scenario turns out. Looks like we all are striving for some middle ground where everyone will be a little unhappy about the result.
Name one country with a better healthcare system. It will have to include discovery of life saving drugs, equipment and a qualified healthcare staff. Just because everyone has access to health care, does not constitiute a great program. If I go to the doctor and their not capable of curing me, that would not be a good system. Looking forward to your reply. No I do not like crack but I may have a glass of wine with dinner tonight.
Sorry if I was unclear. Your screen name makes your career fairly clear. I used the waitress analogy that naothe rposter had used as an example. On this website the acronym \”AZUW\” has a high probability of standing for \”Arizona Underwriter.\”
The thank you is for not going psycho and blasting me for my statements. Not everyone here can keep their emotions separate from debate. I\’m as guilty of that as the next sapien. The point is, thanks for a reasoned response.
I do agree that we\’ll see what happens in Mass and Cali. My fear is that it will be an expensive failure much like Canada and Europe have experienced. It says nothing good that we wish for universal health care like they have and they wish for short lines at the hospital and lower taxes. I\’m sincerely afraid that there is no good answer, only bad ones.
I understand the problems with socialized medicine in Europe, but this isn\’t the same is it? I mean, it\’s not like every person will just be covered and that all costs associated with medicine will be through taxes. Unless I read this wrong, aren\’t the insurance providers still going to charge a premium for the service they provide. Tax dollars will have to pay for the subsidy on the poorer workers, but they will still have to purchase with money they earn. That is the case, right? So, I don\’t think you\’re going to see what\’s happening in Europe. It sounds like to me this is not going to affect the person who currently has insurance that much. You may have to pay slightly more in taxes (but, probably a negliable amount), but you\’ll still have your same program through your work. It sounds like it will greatly help with hospitals trying to collect deductibles, and it people begin to utilize preventive medicine, it may even cut down on malpractice suits and will definitely cut back on the high cost of the ER being the primary physician for those uninsured.
I understand the problems with socialized medicine in Europe, but this isn\’t the same is it? I mean, it\’s not like every person will just be covered and that all costs associated with medicine will be through taxes. Unless I read this wrong, aren\’t the insurance providers still going to charge a premium for the service they provide. Tax dollars will have to pay for the subsidy on the poorer workers, but they will still have to purchase with money they earn. That is the case, right? So, I don\’t think you\’re going to see what\’s happening in Europe. It sounds like to me this is not going to affect the person who currently has insurance that much. You may have to pay slightly more in taxes (but, probably a negliable amount), but you\’ll still have your same program through your work. It sounds like it will greatly help with hospitals trying to collect deductibles, and it people begin to utilize preventive medicine, it may even cut down on malpractice suits and will definitely cut back on the high cost of the ER being the primary physician for those uninsured.
Hmmm. Education comes immediately to mind. Certainly state universities & colleges – but also public elementary schools – which educate everybody under tough conditions – not just the pampered spawn of the rich. Then, let\’s see,… weather prediction, scientific research, preservation of wilderness and parks, medical care for the disadvantaged. Nice chatting with you, Milton.
I was waiting for the education one, so here goes. Let\’s start with primary and secondary education. SAT scores are higher across the board for private/parochial scools, than for public schools, and I emphasize this… no matter the income level of the parents!!! Same income level of those attending private will score acorss the board better, than those attending public schools. Lets not eliminate public schools, but give parents a voucher, to dare I use the phrase… choose the school of their choice. Univeristies? While Indiana University is a fine school, don\’t you think Notre Dame might be a little better? Harvard vs any other state school in the country? You, however got me on the weather prediction one. I give up on that one. Won\’t give up on scientific research though, we have the best minds working in private industry, with pharmacueticals, computers, medical research etal., but I will give you space exploration. As far as trees go, there are more growing in the United States now, than when Columbus discovered America. I really don\’t think the term \”pampered spawn of the rich\” is a good term, Teddy Kennedy would be highly offended.
Ahhh, Milton. It is pointless to argue about whether IU is \”better\” than ND or not. IU has better physics & chemistry depts, ND has better English and Theology depts. Of course a small selective private school can have students with high SAT scores. Private schools are selective about who they take. What is amazing is that public schools accomplish what they do with an \”adversely selected\” population. To say private schools do \”better\” requires the use of a biased metric. Private industry does better than public-funded university research?? I think not! I have a PhD in physics and taught in universities for 10 years.
And I kind of liked \”pampered spawn of the rich!\” I worked at that one! Just don\’t tell Teddy I said that.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness and civility. Its quite enjoyable ranting with you.
Its stunning how many of you don\’t get it. You whine about your taxes going up and reflexively condemn any plan put forth to address what thinking people recognize as a fundamental problem…We cannot have people in our society unable to access basic healthcare. Whether its cause they\’re poor, lazy or employed by a cheapskate, etc. Everyone is entitled to basic healthcare. Not heart transplants necessarily – but standard healthcare like control of high blood pressure or diabetes. Yes, we will all have to pay for this. We all have to pay for schools, too. Its part of life in a civilized country. I\’m sure some moron will suggest anyone who feels like I do move to Sweden. I admire such wit, but the days of \”me-first & screw everyone else\” Republicanism are winding down.
Having been in this business for a long time,here we go again.For all you \”old timers\”,there was state fund,which now is an out of controll bureaucracy[even \”big\”john had to sue work comp to be under the controll of the DOI]and unaccountable!Then there is the \”fair plan\”,limited coverage and nobody asks the question,why do wealthy hollywood types and real estate investors buy property in Malibu and expect the California taxpayers to subsidize it using the fair plan?Finally,\”cheap goverment car insurance\”,a complete bureau was set up and the plan failed.Lastly,the state invloved in medical insurance?Who are you kidding?
All the good he did with the WC reform will be undone with an expensive tax payer levied health insurance plan! I knew it was too good to be true.
Socialism is not the answer. Think freedom, free markets, incentives, rewards, opportunity, choice, etc. I don\’t look forward to standing in line with millionaires and vagabonds to see a Doctor (or less) assigned to me by the Government.
We have to do something to fix the healthcare system. There is no way around paying additional taxes to do it and in the long run if it helps to cut down on the unpaid bills to doctors, hospitals & emergency rooms isn\’t it worth a few more dollars? I think everyone is open to other suggestions……..
Someone want to get the lights when the last of businesses leave? Kiss your retirement package goodbye…time to move out of state!
Just Great! Now I will get to pay MORE flippin\’ taxes on top of the already outrageous health insurance premiums I now pay. Way to go Arnold!
Scott,
We really have to move past this whole \”free market is the answer to everyting\” idea. I have read several of the postings here, and it\’s definitely a recuring theme. We have had free markets for a long time, and there are 40 million people that can\’t pay for basic care. And these are not all vagabonds. We have to think outside the box to solve what is rapidly becoming a huge problem. If you get sick and don\’t have insurance, what do you do. Well, you either die or you go to a hospital and then don\’t pay the bill. What good does that do our society. It\’s real easy when you have a job with health insurance to not care about those that don\’t. As I\’m sure I\’m about to get hammered with \”why don\’t you move to Russia\” or \”that\’s socialism, and that\’s not how we do it here\”, I\’ll do a premptive defense. Do you not realize that more money is paid for emergency care than having a doctor to go see regularly. As much as people on this site want to deny it, we pay for things one way or another, and the free market doesn\’t answer all the questions. What about police forces and national security. Why don\’t we turn that over to the private sector as well if it\’s so much better? I mean, forget the compassion piece, just think about the money we already pay to subsidize people that never go to a doctor but instead go to the ER when they have a problem.
I think that this is indeed a good idea for all states to ponder, and once all states are on the boat possibly move to a federal level. If this were to happen, although taxes may be higher I would take solice in the fact that I now have something tangible for my tax paying dollar that is there when I need it unlike Soc. Security or fighting for what I don\’t know about now overseas! Actually, I think that is is a good turn for the US as a whole to take, in the direction of its own huddled uninsured masses.
AZUW, I have no doubt the governor’s plan will be enacted in some way shape or form so let\’s see if it saves money or creates an enormous out of control bureaucracy. If it saves money I\’m all for it, but I\’m extremely skeptical. And it\’s not easy to maintain a job and provide health insurance for yourself, your family and the uninsured. It is easy to be unemployed and uninsured and then get a freebie from the Gov. That\’s easy! It\’s not that we don\’t care but enough is enough. It goes back to the incentive idea, what incentive do the unemployed/uninsured have to get a job and get insurance. If we keep providing it for them there\’s none.
I agree with your statements AZUM. Scott prefers to sit in his cubicle and pontificate with his blinders on obviously unaware of the reality that surrounds him. Something needs to be done to reverse and/or correct the mess we are in (due to the free market).
I provide for a family of four. We don\’t have life insurance because I can\’t afford it. Want to help me out with that Bob? What\’s the cost to society if I die and my kids become wards of the State? Following your logic isn\’t this your problem too?
With all the complaints about a failing free market, why not let the pendulum swing the other way and provide everything through govt subsidies. That way we can spend less in the free market and have absolutely no say in how high our taxes go to provide for the masses. With enough people paying all these wonderful taxes, we should be very well taken care of! Or at least the politicians will be.
Oh, for God\’s sake \’free market\’, noboby is saying we should change the United States to socialist nation. Let\’s have a rational, grown up conversation. The free market is obviously not working on health care. I know, I know, the free market can walk your dog, mow your lawn, and give you a warm, fuzzy feeling at night. But, here\’s the deal…we all need health insurance. And if the supply and demand curves cross at a price where 40MM people can\’t afford it, there\’s a problem. It\’s not like this is going out and buying a car. Not everyone gets to drive a Mercedez, not everyone gets to live in a 5,000 ft2 house, and not everyone gets to take a vacation every year, but health care is NOT THE SAME. For way too long, we\’ve all been about looking out for #1. Whether you want to belive it or not, we all live here together and everything and everyone is affected by everyone else. I\’m assuming you hate welfare. And that\’s fine, but the numbers show that crime rates and costs associated with healthcare are lower in areas with comprehensive welfare programs. And I don\’t care how much money you have, it\’s all for naught if someone car jacks you and blows you away. Providing BASIC services for the whole of our population may cost some money in the short run, but the benefits in the large run are huge. We have to start somewhere. The health carriers can still share in the premium and the costs of health care, they may just need a little help for the government, and yes, that means you and me. You may not like it, but again, you\’re going to pay one way or the other, so you might as well pay up front when maybe we can save some on the back end.
AZUW lets state a few facts regarding gov\’t responsibility to its citizens. You mentioned privatizing police forces. The gov\’t is here to protect and defend the citizens, however aren\’t there gated communities with there own police force? But why? Secondly we must have regulations and standards to set a somewhat even palying field for all involved. Ie. SEC EPA and of course the FDA etal. 40 million people have chosen not to purchase health insurance. How many of them own ipods and cell phones and cable tv and …. I could go on and on. Whether you want to admit it or not, that doctor or drug that saves your life has a cost attached to it. Please name me one business the government is in that competes with the private sector and delivers a better product, service or value than the private sector.
Ah, glad I stuck a nerve AZUW! I don\’t disagree with you, just frustrated about the cost of the delivery system! I don\’t hate welfare for the ones that deserve it, just the abuses it takes, same as every other social system we have. Seems like no one is willing to follow the intent/spirit of the systems and say \”no\” once in awhile. Any plausable solutions you care to share?
Milt (my condolences to your family, albeit belated),
Fantastic exaggeration. So, the 40MM people without health insurance made a choice not to have health insurance? How do you know that? I think you\’re right, health care should be the first thing someone buys, and then they can worry about food and shelter after that. So, then I guess the security guards at those gated communities are better trained than police offices because private industry does a better job. Who is your security guard, Chuck Norris?
Free Market,
I know it\’s a popular belief, but welfare isn\’t as abused as everyone thinks it is. I wish I could remeber the number, by very few people stay on welfare longer than 2 years. Now, once you hit that mark, you\’re usually on it for a very long time, but that the excpetion, not the rule. The problem with any program that helps many is that its easy to abuse. You could make welfare very difficult to abuse, but then many people that really need it, wouldn\’t be able to be helped. I know it\’s not a popular view, but look, we don\’t pay enough in taxes, and have way to much stuff here. I think the top tax rate when Eisenhower was president was like 91%. I\’m not suggesting we gouge the rich like that, but the money has to come from somewhere. We\’re all going to have to pay more as much as it sucks.
I agree that the rich should not be gouged, just pay the same percentage as the rest of us (sounds like socialism, doesn\’t it). I don\’t see any solutions you proposed other than paying taxes. Sure hope you like crossing that bridge in Alaska (opps, that was defeated, wasn\’t it?). Maybe welfare isn\’t abused, how about social security or the miriad other programs? Burns my hide when the politicians can produce all that pork & no one seems to care or correct it.
Milt,
I graduated from IU in 1997, and I have to tell you…I take a little offense to your comments. IU has many, many, many schools that are in the tops of the nation. Before I went to IU, I attended a little engineering school, and feel that I have a fine degree, from a fine institution. To address vouchers…they don\’t work. I\’ve never been employed in the field of education, but I know from friends and families they don\’t provide the educational advantages that you\’re talking about. If, for example, the annual tuition of a private school is 10,000 / year and the voucher is for 3,000 / year, many parents still can\’t afford to send their kids there. What tends to happen is that kids with wealthier parents get a benefit from what is essentially a coupon, and poorer kids from the inner city or from rural America are still out of reach. Since vouchers are publically funded, they take away essential money from public schools and throw money into the hands of people that have more than enough money to send their kids to private school anyway.
The point that RNR makes about admittance is important too. It\’s easy to say you have a superior school if you only let in the smartest. If you have to take all or most, than SAT scores are irrelevant when discussing the ability to score. Either way, the example is app to show that in certain situations the whole free market, capitalism doesn\’t answer all questions. And, further, there are certain situation where a result is too important to be left up to a concept that puts profit above all else.
Holy crap again. All these threads and no one is upset that the Terminator wants to provide health care to all illegal aliens, too??? I don\’t mind doing something for our own citizens, but how the hell do we take care of all those who come here illegally? Name me one other country that would allow an American to enter illegally and then bestow all the riches of its citizens?
I\’m still waiting for an answer to my question. When has the government stepped in and provided a better service or product than private enterprise?
Your not going to get an answer because AZUW can\’t give you one. Socialism has never worked; never will.
Milt,
You cannot compare the two because the intended ends are different. When the private sector gets involved in any industry, they are obviously looking to make money. In order to do that they have to make tough choices and are given an incentive (profits) to find cheaper and better ways to do things. And on that piece, they would be much better at providing the services to some or most of the public. The government ends are to protect its citizens, all of them regardless of the price. Take for example national security. We spend 400 billion / year on that. Don\’t tell me that some company couldn\’t swoop in and provide the same protection for half the price. Now, that might involve not giving soldiers what they need to protect them, and it might involve out-sourcing our intelligence to India, but they would make it work. The deal is that there needs to be this particular product for all. You don\’t have to take the private sector out of the business, you just subsidize them in order for them to maintain a profit and continue to employee what I\’m sure is thousands upon thousands of people in the state of CA. So to answer your question, you have to decide what you want out of the process.
You can\’t name just one industry? In your reference to national defense, who builds all the machinery from bullets to B-1 bombers? Wouldn\’t it be cheaper if we cut out the middleman?
Milt,
You\’re asking an impossible question. I\’m not a socialist, and I\’m not trying to say the US should be a socialist country. Of course the private sector is more efficient than government. That was never my argument. But, if you goal is to provide everyone in the country with health care, the standard supply and demand curves don\’t work. They work in the sense to maximize profits and charge the legitimate market price for a good, but AGAIN, this is not a product that we should be letting people go without. This isn\’t a high end car, this isn\’t a big home, this isn\’t a 2 month European vacation…this is basic quality of life stuff. We\’ll have to just agree to disagree. You think the free market should be the rule and if people can\’t afford health care at the price that gives a profit to the industry, screw \’em. I think that we all need to pitch end to make sure everyone has it.
I am a free market capitalist. There is no question by my comments, however you are in denial about your socialist leanings. From Meriam Webster – socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Is that not what you are advocating? And here we have capitalism – an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. I emphasize private decision. We are living healthier and longer than at any other time in the history of the world. Our health care system is the best in the world. Yes, it can be expensive, but it is still a choice and that is what I am advocating is choice, not a bureaucracy.
Milt,
There\’s really no point to going on with this. You\’re not reading my postings. Again, I\’m not denying we have a good health care system (in quality)…Again, I\’m not advocating broad socialism in our industries….I\’m going to say this one more time as simply as I possibly can…
This is not a question of who can provide a more efficient, more profitable system. It is a question of soul. Every citizen of this country should have health care. That\’s the premise of my argument. Your\’s is that capitalism is better than socialism. You\’re not arguing the same issue I am. I know capitalism is better, but if we have to inject some socialism in our health care system to cover everyone, then so be it. I don\’t mind paying extra in taxes to give the lazy, drunk bum coverage or the 5 year old with a single mother that works at Denny\’s.
Mr. AZUW,
Let me just ask you one question: What about the ILLEGALS? You can\’t be in favor of them getting health care benefits, are you?
Not everyone shares your assumptions. Let me be brutally honest: I DON\’T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS \”ENTITLED\” TO GOOD HEALTHCARE. There, I said it, and I feel better. AZUW, the current system is not a free market system. It is regulated and controlled. Regulations forc up costs, as when hospitals are mandated to provide service to anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. The rest of us end up paying for that bit of legislation when we have to cover the unpaid bills. If hospitals were allowed to deny service costs would be lower and care more affordable. It would cause pain in the short term, but in the long run we all benefit. You disagree, but it\’s true. Guns are cheaper in Somalia because there\’s no regulation. The trick is finding a happy medium and I\’m afraid you are straying too far towards regulation.
The crux of the problem is that you believe the simple act of being born entitles you to various \”rights\”. Let me refer you to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those documents initially guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They were frameworks put in place to allow people to pursue personal dreams while government did the heavy lifting of external defence and limited internal organization.
People like you have perverted it. Now, this country believes that everyone should have everything all the time, and that\’s simply not feasible. An earleir commenter asked how many of the \”working poor\” have cable and cell phones, but no healthcare, and that\’s a legit question.
If you really are a single mom working a single shift at Denny\’s there are government programs (including health care) to help you. I know- my wife and I were forced to use them for a short while. If those programs aren\’t enough, get another job- I did. You\’re not guaranteed the good life or happiness- your only guarantee is the right to pursue them as you see fit, so long as you do not harm another human in the process. It\’s not easy to gain those things you want? Tough Shite.
Mr. Recall,
First of all, when did I say anything about illegals. I have never once made an argument that illegals should have the same privleges as citizens. I don\’t believe that, and I have never advocated that.
Mjolnir,
We apparently have different definitions of happiness. If your pursuit of happiness does not include getting medical attention when you need it, so be it, but I disagree. And you\’re absolutely right, we do have a sense of entitlement in this country unheard of nearly anywhere in the world. We can get terrible gas mileage if we want, we can develop any part of the country that we want, we can live in a 10,000 ft2 house if we want. I don\’t equate those things with going to the doctor when I get sick. You\’ve indicated here that not everyone gets to have health care, and that\’s that. Fine, that\’s what you think. I believe differently. We\’ll have to see how the CA experiment works out. Massachusetts went first and so I imagine we\’ll see if this kind of programs has merit within the next year, albeit on a much smaller scale.
By the way, I\’m not a waitress at Denny\’s, that was just an example. I\’m an insurance underwriter. I have always had health insurance (well except for a bad year in 2002).
Let me just say that it\’s great to see such lively debate. At least we still have the freedom of ideas and expression.
AZUW you are getting closer to the truth. \”Some socialism\”, is a good start for you. There is a difference between health care and health insurance. Hospitals can not deny health care to any individual when a life is threatened. To provide health insurance to all by the government is socialism. Medicaid is the insurance solution for those who qualify. For those who do not qualify, it is up to them to purchase health insurance, and if they do not, then they will be buying health care at their own expense. It is their choice. Instead of paying more in taxes, why don\’t you pick a family and buy their health insurance?
Keep an eye on Chavez & Venezuela to see how the socialism scenario turns out. Looks like we all are striving for some middle ground where everyone will be a little unhappy about the result.
Milton you are on crack if you think we have the best healthcare system in the world.
Jees Mjolnir could you get any more un-American?
Name one country with a better healthcare system. It will have to include discovery of life saving drugs, equipment and a qualified healthcare staff. Just because everyone has access to health care, does not constitiute a great program. If I go to the doctor and their not capable of curing me, that would not be a good system. Looking forward to your reply. No I do not like crack but I may have a glass of wine with dinner tonight.
Sorry if I was unclear. Your screen name makes your career fairly clear. I used the waitress analogy that naothe rposter had used as an example. On this website the acronym \”AZUW\” has a high probability of standing for \”Arizona Underwriter.\”
The thank you is for not going psycho and blasting me for my statements. Not everyone here can keep their emotions separate from debate. I\’m as guilty of that as the next sapien. The point is, thanks for a reasoned response.
I do agree that we\’ll see what happens in Mass and Cali. My fear is that it will be an expensive failure much like Canada and Europe have experienced. It says nothing good that we wish for universal health care like they have and they wish for short lines at the hospital and lower taxes. I\’m sincerely afraid that there is no good answer, only bad ones.
I understand the problems with socialized medicine in Europe, but this isn\’t the same is it? I mean, it\’s not like every person will just be covered and that all costs associated with medicine will be through taxes. Unless I read this wrong, aren\’t the insurance providers still going to charge a premium for the service they provide. Tax dollars will have to pay for the subsidy on the poorer workers, but they will still have to purchase with money they earn. That is the case, right? So, I don\’t think you\’re going to see what\’s happening in Europe. It sounds like to me this is not going to affect the person who currently has insurance that much. You may have to pay slightly more in taxes (but, probably a negliable amount), but you\’ll still have your same program through your work. It sounds like it will greatly help with hospitals trying to collect deductibles, and it people begin to utilize preventive medicine, it may even cut down on malpractice suits and will definitely cut back on the high cost of the ER being the primary physician for those uninsured.
I understand the problems with socialized medicine in Europe, but this isn\’t the same is it? I mean, it\’s not like every person will just be covered and that all costs associated with medicine will be through taxes. Unless I read this wrong, aren\’t the insurance providers still going to charge a premium for the service they provide. Tax dollars will have to pay for the subsidy on the poorer workers, but they will still have to purchase with money they earn. That is the case, right? So, I don\’t think you\’re going to see what\’s happening in Europe. It sounds like to me this is not going to affect the person who currently has insurance that much. You may have to pay slightly more in taxes (but, probably a negliable amount), but you\’ll still have your same program through your work. It sounds like it will greatly help with hospitals trying to collect deductibles, and it people begin to utilize preventive medicine, it may even cut down on malpractice suits and will definitely cut back on the high cost of the ER being the primary physician for those uninsured.
Hmmm. Education comes immediately to mind. Certainly state universities & colleges – but also public elementary schools – which educate everybody under tough conditions – not just the pampered spawn of the rich. Then, let\’s see,… weather prediction, scientific research, preservation of wilderness and parks, medical care for the disadvantaged. Nice chatting with you, Milton.
I was waiting for the education one, so here goes. Let\’s start with primary and secondary education. SAT scores are higher across the board for private/parochial scools, than for public schools, and I emphasize this… no matter the income level of the parents!!! Same income level of those attending private will score acorss the board better, than those attending public schools. Lets not eliminate public schools, but give parents a voucher, to dare I use the phrase… choose the school of their choice. Univeristies? While Indiana University is a fine school, don\’t you think Notre Dame might be a little better? Harvard vs any other state school in the country? You, however got me on the weather prediction one. I give up on that one. Won\’t give up on scientific research though, we have the best minds working in private industry, with pharmacueticals, computers, medical research etal., but I will give you space exploration. As far as trees go, there are more growing in the United States now, than when Columbus discovered America. I really don\’t think the term \”pampered spawn of the rich\” is a good term, Teddy Kennedy would be highly offended.
Ahhh, Milton. It is pointless to argue about whether IU is \”better\” than ND or not. IU has better physics & chemistry depts, ND has better English and Theology depts. Of course a small selective private school can have students with high SAT scores. Private schools are selective about who they take. What is amazing is that public schools accomplish what they do with an \”adversely selected\” population. To say private schools do \”better\” requires the use of a biased metric. Private industry does better than public-funded university research?? I think not! I have a PhD in physics and taught in universities for 10 years.
And I kind of liked \”pampered spawn of the rich!\” I worked at that one! Just don\’t tell Teddy I said that.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness and civility. Its quite enjoyable ranting with you.