Citizens to barnstorm DC in support of Single Payer Health Care?

Ze is a hero of mine. Thanks much for the compliment.

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

I think that that's highly unlikely.

@asherp
Thus is current.

no way! keep the govt off my back, I can make my own decisions!

well, depending on if the government does a good job.

Do you really want a mandate that you buy health care? Even if you're paying a health insurance company for a plan, there's no guarantee that you're actually covered.

First: it's not a trend. it's a good idea

Second: I'm not blindly following it. It's a good idea, because I sat down and thought about it, and did research. You should do the same.

Propaganda.

Just becuase they aren't in it doesn't mean they disagree.

You also have blind faith in the "free market" being able to deliver the ideal, despite hundreds of years of history proving that notion wrong.

Do you have ANYTHING constructive to say, or are you going to keep baying at the moon?

First: slowed innovation?

Why is it assumed that government involvement means innovation slows down? NASA comes up with crazy new shit all the time, and it's a branch of the government. Furthermore, doesn't the GOVERNMENT give GRANTS for research and development?

Second: All that would happen is that instead of having to buy a health insurance plan from Kaiser or Anthem, you would be covered by the government. You'd still go to the same doctor, take the same prescription drugs, use the same medical equipment. Nothing would change on the actual providing of health care.

All that would change is your insurer.

"1. What is the cost of the health care reform. I am not talking about the dollar figure but the cost of slowed innovation with medical technologies, the cost of less lucrative pay for doctors, the cost of time spent waiting for treatment and the social cost of increasing the poverty trap?"

Well let us think, the cost for innovation with medical technologies can be rounded out to pretty much nil. Do you think that all innovations or new medical techniques come from the United States and that none come from nations that have a socialized health care system?

It is true that doctors in countries with socialized medicine typically make less than doctors here. It is also true that the "pay cut" that doctors take over in those other nations doesn't have a negative impact on their lives. Also, many doctors who work in the United States get bonuses from insurance companies to put a cap on how many claims they approve per month. That means if you need your doctor to approve something, and he's already at his/her quota, he/she is likely to deny your request so long as doing so won't cause you serious harm.

And how in the heck does socialized health care increase the poverty trap?

"2. What will happen to funding when the government is in a deficit and they are looking to cut costs?"

Good question, what happened to all of those nations with socialized health care whom had strong economic ties to our own economy's health when our economy took a tank and their economy took a relative dip as well? Did they loose their health care?

"3. What will happen to equality gap between the single payer health care system and free market system when funding is slowed/cut during recessions?"

This is essentially the same question that you posed before. You're essentially asking what will happen when the economy turns to shit for any amount of time. Probably the same thing that happened in nations like England or Canada when their economy followed ours.

"4. Who will decide the who, what, WHEN, were, and why of treatment?"

Hopefully people who don't get a part of a profit from denying a rightful claim. Currently private insurance companies and people whose salary is effected by those insurance companies make those decisions now.

"5. Who will make the decision of where scarce medical supplies get sent?"

I'd say people with a medical degree and background as opposed to a business background to determine who is either more needy of the medical supplies or who would have a better chance of survival. I'm sure age would also be a factor, as we would be more likely to supply young people who need the medication to live as opposed to elderly who need it to live.

If Bush reincarnated get elected and tries to dismantle a successful universal health care, if the health care works really really well, then people will likely protest. And if protest doesn't work it could turn into riots. Basically, if the system was established in a way that was supposed to be, the people wouldn't allow some schmuck to take it away.

As far as it being an old program, who cares? If it works and works well then why in the hell should anyone care if it is an old program?

"second, since when has a politician ever... Ever cared about an old program?"

I'm sorry, you've never been to England.

The National Health Service is pure gold. Nobody fucks with it.

Response to #1

The problem as I see it here is that you assume that people who invent new technologies or medicines will not get the same patents and therefor will not have the economic incentive to develop new treatments. It does not work that way. Name some parts of the government that uses currently patented technology but does not allow the inventor to be paid through that patent. The individual who comes up with the idea or concept will still make a good profit from their idea.

Response to #2

That's wonderful and all, but did the MRI machines per capita drop so low that people who needed MRI's couldn't get MRI's withing a reasonable amount of time?

As for quality of health care, medicines and technologies can and likely will still be purchased from independent contractors. This is a form of health insurance we're talking about, not a hostile take over of everything that has to do with the medical industry. The hospitals will likely not own their means for producing the tools they need to treat patients, instead they will have to deal with companies that compete for the hospitals money.

Response to #4

Based on the contract you willingly sign. Well thousands of United States citizens sign those contracts and are denied coverage based upon pathetic excuses so the insurance companies don't have to pay out. I know nurses who have been denied legitimate claims because the insurance company they were under through the hospital didn't want to shell out the dough. Curious enough though, a few of those nurses reported the illegitimate denials to a branch of the government that deals primarily with insurance fraud. The branch called up their insurance company and the story changed immediately from, "Denied," to, "Oh, we meant to approve it all along, but the paperwork just got a little mixed up."

Response to #5

I'm sorry, I'm must be missing the point here. Doctors who have their private practice, or a partnership, or what not... this is an single payer insurance plan. The doctors still get paid, and more likely than not they'll end up getting paid the same amount for treating a patient. A large portion of the money saving comes from not having to pay insurance premiums that go directly to the pockets of people who either own insurance companies or work high up on the ladder.

LMAO

... and they don't want to be proven wrong.

It drives me nuts when I hear people say "oh, but people are dying waiting in line in Canada"

No... they aren't. I know personally Canadians in four different provinces, and it's not like that at all in any of them.

It's just a rumor that refuses to die.

Another one responsible for the mess we are in.

Milton Friedman is such a fucktard.

Everywhere he goes he tries to "liberate" markets, but all his economic theories have EVER done have caused widespread unemployment, widespread starvation, and what's more, when they are implemented in democracies, since the people vote against his asinine policies, fascism is required to keep pro-friedman leaders in power.

Just look at the Chicago School of Economics tour of the world:
Indonesia, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Poland...

In every place that his policies have been implemented it was SOCIALISM that corrected the course of the economy.

John Maynard Keynes actually knew what the fuck he was talking about, and Milton Friedman can so suck Pinochet's dick for all I care.

Go Blow.

It's barbaric that we allow people who can't afford health insurance to die.

I don't need to address your 5 questions because they don't apply to the change I'm talking about.