Briarroot
11/11/2009 6:29:00 PM
Frank E wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:52:39 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Hqf6Sk87LtRkcQIL6gr=G2L+Gh=A@4ax.com>,
>> fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>>> I live in a Universal Healthcare country - a question I've posed here
>>>> before is : show me one - 1 - example of a country where there's UHC
>>>> and it's either better or cheaper than what you guys have today.
>>> Cheaper? I'm pretty sure that that would be every other country in the
>>> world. Better? It's a meaningless comparison. If you can afford it or
>>> you work for a company with good benefits, it's better than what I had
>>> working in Europe. If you work for Walmart or are unemployed, Cuba
>>> probably has better health care that what you're getting.
>> But even the Dear Leader - Zero himself! - points out that some 47
>> million Americans are without healthcare benefits ... and that's using
>> the biggest number he pulled out of his ass. Or, another way to look at
>> it is to point out that this means 84% of Americans *do* have healthcare
>> benefits. On any scale of "better," a system which delivers
>> demonstrably *better* healthcare to 84% of the people pretty much beats
>> the shit outta Cuba *or* Belgium.
>
> You're assuming that everyone in the US who does have coverage has
> better coverage than you'd have in Europe. I know a lot of people with
> shitty health plans. And even some of the people here where I work,
> which has excellent coverage, are screwed when it comes to health
> care. People that have family members with a serious medical problem
> can't change jobs. Since it's a pre-existing condition, their new job
> wouldn't cover it (for a year?). It's basically a modern day version
> of indentured servitude.
>
> Would the democrats plan be any better. I honestly don't have a clue,
> but given their track record on things like the stimulus, I'm not
> holding my breath. ... but that doesn't keep me from saying that the
> current system is seriously fucked up.
>
S what are your suggestions?
Here are a few of mine:
1) People should stop expecting health care insurance to cover minor
ills, office visits and routine services like dental and optical.
Insurance should be though of as an emergency fund intended to cover
only serious illness or catastrophic accidents - much like car insurance
or homeowners insurance. That change alone would save everyone enormous
sums!
2) Existing state laws prohibit people from buying health insurance from
companies operating in other states, effectively forming local
monopolies. I can shop online for car insurance, buying it from whoever
offers the best terms, located anywhere in the country, but if I wanted
to buy health insurance I would be forced to get it from a company in my
home state. That bit of anti-competitive nonsense is extremely
important because current health care insurance rates display huge
differences in different regions of the country. Let's repeal those laws.
3) Medicare. The US government forces doctors and hospitals to accept
lower than standard remuneration for services rendered to Medicare
patients and that revenue is made up by charging non-Medicare patients
*more* for the same services. Since Medicare is perceived by it's
recipients to be a 'free' service, it encourages what is known as
"over-consumption," meaning that they are highly likely to demand *more*
medical services than average and more than is actually necessary.
Let's dissolve Medicare and instead boost Social Security payments to
provide a realistic standard of living. In that way, retired
individuals would be forced to make useful decision about health care
services just like those of us who are uninsured. Why is the system for
paying retirees divorced from the system that pays for their health.
The division makes no sense!
4) Tax exemptions given to businesses which provide health insurance to
their employees cost the Federal government more than $200 billion each
year, however, private individuals who wish to buy health insurance must
do so with after-tax income. In effect, this makes private health
insurance dramatically more expensive for those who don't receive it as
a benefit from their employer. Let's end this exemption; in fact, let's
stop encouraging businesses from offering health insurance altogether.
They don't require any fiscal incentive to keep good employees anyway.
And, as I said above, health insurance provided by employers produces a
serious and unnecessary over-consumption of medical services which
artificially exaggerates the supply/demand curve. Let's end this practice.
--
"Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance? Yes, yes, says White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Congress has the power to make
everyone buy health insurance. 'I don't believe there's a lot of case
law that would demonstrate the veracity' of comments to the contrary.
Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We'll see about all that when -- if - the
matter of Congress' power over private commercial judgments of this
nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile the knock-down,
drag-out over health insurance 'reform' shouldn't be allowed to fuzz up
another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison's name
have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate
telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we'll buy health
insurance, like it or not, Buster? Why do we have to? Because the
government says so, isn't that reason enough? For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and
the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides
to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words,
in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government
may and may not do. Several problems arise concerning this fine theory:
- It's nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of
divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of
government. And other powers divided between states and the national
government. - It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to
its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens'
rights and privileges. All for the 'general good' naturally! -- It
divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors
from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has
the right to dispense such favors. The Obama administration, which
desperately wants health care to pass, brushes off such concerns as
cranky and relevant mainly to wild-eyed Limbaugh and Palin fans, when in
fact concerns about the rightful exercise of government power should
inform every legislative debate. Those it doesn't inform are likely to
end badly. Majority support of this or that initiative doesn't
legitimize the initiative." - William Murchison, senior fellow at the
Texas Public Policy Foundation