UK Socialized Health Care Kills Curable Patients - Slavery Is Not Compassionate!

This article also includes the current government oligopolized insurance system that the bureaucrats have brought to us over the decades. What health care is in America is a crippled market......

The only just system is one centered around individualism and freedom, not slavery and bureaucratic central planned controls.

So who does control it then?

What protectionist efforts do you think are necessary? If it comes to price setting is will not work, that is economics 101. If it is protection against fraud, force, aggression and violence....then libertarians agree with you.....we should have justice for those who use fraud, force, aggression, and violence. What exactly are you afraid of losing? Almost every form of protectionism today goes to big businesses....we see how centralized coercive monopolies have played out.....why continue this fraud? Capitalism at it's base calls for just this, a system in which people are suppose to be free to do as they wish while the secondary effect is forcing the rich to fight for the consumers dollar. Every form of protectionism is a war on consumerism....a war on the poor! Look how the protected auto industry and their unions turned out.....a disaster.....and you want to continue this slave system? What exactly are you afraid of losing?

I'm afraid of continuing to be a pawn in the rich man's game. Granted we do not have free-market capitalism. Give Globochem (made up name - Mr Show) more freedom to do as they please and here are the things that will be raped by greedy men: the environment, worker's rights, consumer protections, democracy (cuz money talks), health care, public programs, etc, etc, etc.

Capitalism doesn't always lead to the best possible product. That is a pipe dream, it just isn't true. You cannot defend any capitalist stand on Health Insurance reform for this reason: Paying out for patients to get care costs the Health Insurance companies money. We already see the effects of this now. People who need help being denied coverage. Some corporations profit by providing a great product that people can buy. They directly benefit from providing a good product or service that the consumer directly pays for.

However, health insurance doesn't work this way. When the insurance companies provide the service, it costs them (the health insurance companies themselves). Their income comes from taking in more money from their customers and paying out less. This model does not yield quality for the consumer. The opposite occurs.

That's why we need some social programs. I am a proponent of social democracy. Some things, matters of life and death, should not be in the hands of the private sector because greed will ruin it. If firefighters/police/mail carriers were for profit, the costs of their services would skyrocket and I guess poor people would just not have these services.

I am a huge fan of Naomi Klein. You should read her, "The Shock Doctrine".

Even though I disagree with your conclusions, I admire your reasons for coming to them (liberty, etc). I just don't think letting corporations do whatever they want will actually benefit us. It will actually hurt us because capitalism rewards greed, so the most greedy among us will succeed the most and have the most power. As we see now, with how the health insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail against any reform using outright lies and bribes, this is not a good thing. Money is freedom, when only the top 2% of the country have 95% of the wealth (or whatever it is).... THAT is slavery my friend.

Taken to its logical extreme competitive corporations shall eventually reach the status of monopolies, such as they already frequently threaten to do currently and have done in the past. When monopolies occur the free choice of the consumer is thus removed and we are left with yet another form of slavery this time however it is one without term limits.

Often overlooked by anarcho-capitalists is this eventual goal of the corporation. By being an entity who's sole survival is based on its bottom-line there is often times very little concern for the liberties of the consumer and the result is often times very damaging for the overall population (Eastman Kodak anyone?) and any manual laborers associated with such entities (pre-labor laws America circa Industrial Revolution?).

Anything outside of the realm of complete anarchy with no organizations/corporations etc is by your definition a form of mental slavery for when we must consider the rights of others, be they your next door neighbor or the company that determines what food your region is to be exposed to, our choices are not 100% free. Only by tearing down all forms of group hierarchy is the individual truly free in all decisions of action, besides the act of seeking social reinforcements, yet in this world of blatant disregard for our fellow humans we regress to a state of childlike selfishness.
(sorry for the semi-ad hominem at the end of all of that)

I wasn't advocating the elimination of a free market only indicating that what we have now in no way resembles one. I am actually in favor of free market solutions.

We could eliminate the "Medical Industrial Complex". By taking away any and all special privileges that doctors, physicians assistants, nurses and any and all health care providers posses via law as opposed to there specialized training we could increase the supply of the health care community and the number of viable health care solutions. Medical schools artificially limit the number of health care providers, many programs must decide between applicants with perfect GPAs and differentiate based on extra curricular activities, charity work, the strength of letters of recommendation, creating an artificial shortage and increasing medical costs while the limited number of slots ensures the costs of health care providers educations stay high. Allow people to decide for themselves if they want to go to an MD, PA, RN ect. after all it has been estimated that a RN is capable of correctly diagnosing and offering treatment options over 90% of common ailments, and that a PA is capable of diagnosing and treating over even more, and you would still have access to general practitioners and specialists, but allow people to decide for themselves the appropriate level of care and expense they wish to receive without having the government mandate it universally on a federal level without regard to the specifics of individual peoples medical situations. If they deregulated much of this there would be more health care practitioners and a more fluid use of them. Eliminate the FDAs ability to determine what is and is not appropriate for an individual adult to take into their body and the MDs current positions as drug dealers. Many doctors readily admit to getting their information about new drugs by reading drug company created literature very similar to what is available to the public. It makes very little sense for a person who is close to 99% sure about a recurring illness, or any illness or medical condition for that matter, to be forced to consult with a doctor to be prescribed set of drugs or perform simple procedures, or be forced to go to a "qualified professional" when a shoot is required or intravenous drugs. The people who draw blood from you probably have a GED or high school diploma and a few hours of training, diabetics administer their insulin on their own, you can read the same information on medication available to your doctor on the internet, its use for treatments, side effects, and drug interactions. This deregulation would increase the supply of qualified health care practitioners while increasing the efficiency of their use and decreasing their demand. You could again have the local MD and nurses before such arduous regulatory burdens changed historical averages of 90% of medical establishments where small and 10% where large now it is inverted where 90% are large and 10% are small. The regulatory burdens create health care efficiency of scale that aren't inherently health care related only bureaucratically related. Again this is about choice if you still want to go to an MD for every little scrape and bump then you would have that freedom to do so but you would also have the freedom to go to an PA or RN or treat yourself as you see fit. As a side note many of the countries that supply national health care limit access to MDs because MDs are rare and to control costs patients instead go to nurses for simple ailments or conditions.

Drugs shouldn't be forced to go through such an unnecessarily grueling FDA approval process when there are better more statistically advanced techniques that require smaller sample sizes that can avoid the years and hundred of millions of dollars for a drug to be either approved or rejected. Even after approval the efficacy of a drug isn't truly known until sometimes years after its release and during the approval process the people it could be helping don't have access to what could be a life saving drugs. Upon the approval of new heart drug, I can't remember its name, by the FDA the drug company stated that the drug would probably save 10,000 people a year. The drug took 5 years to approve. If the drug companies claims where true that means some 50,000 people died waiting for that drug. If a hundredth of that number of people died from side effects the drug would be recalled and the drug company would be held liable for their deaths in a major lawsuit. If it was reduce to one year 40,000 people would have been saved. Drug companies would still be held liable for deaths and medical conditions associated with their new drugs just as they are now. This liability, if enforced as it should be via current laws, would be a sufficient deterrent against the premature release of new drugs. The reduction of, if not elimination, of the FDA approval process would result in lower expenses for drug companies and lower costs for consumers. The number of new drugs released every year would increase and there efficacy would be more quickly determined. This reduction in expenses would also remove much of the incentive drug companies have in avoiding the five year limit on patent protection before generic competition. If this five year limit was enforced as it should be generic competition could reduce costs further. As a side note if doctors where forced to divulge whether they are getting paid to recommend certain drugs by drug companies people would know about any possible conflicts of interest, basically the same way people who recommend investments often let people know if they currently own the stock or would benefit from its purchase. This same disclosure of possible bonuses for certain procedures would allow the revelation of just how common of conflicts of interest are and currently unaware of this patients are. If doctors and patients where a little more aware of conflicts of interest, and their possible liability, the incentives would shift towards less prescription and more generic prescriptions. The idea that in law a conflict of interest is deemed a liability but in health care it is somehow appropriate is at least perplexing and at most truly abhorrent. If you know about all the possible generics available for brand name drugs we could further reduce costs. Reduced FDA regulation would also result in smaller more efficient drug companies by avoiding the size necessary to accommodate the regulatory bureaucracy. MD salaries without procedural or drug company bonuses would be nice but that is more of a business organizational recommendation than political.

Before blue cross and blue shield health insurance helped relieve the burden of catastrophic injury or medical crises. Essentially it had a large deductible but with a large maximum payout with few limits. Blue cross and Blue shield, which were created by the medical community to ensure demand and prices for their services, gained special tax exempt status by guaranteeing some basic procedural expense coverage while guaranteeing a set price for all individuals. During WWII when wages where limited by the government businesses instead increased benefits. Later health care benefits became tax exempt. The tax exempt status of benefits makes an increase in benefits more cost effective from the employers perspective and increases the power of insurance companies. As a side note when all benefits are included compensation via wages and salaries of the middle class have not stagnated but have continued to increase at a slow rate. Blue cross and Blue shield put traditional medical insurance at a terrible disadvantage. To compete with blue cross and blue shield insurance companies where forced to add basic procedure costs to their plans and when health insurance became tax exempt and when health benefits increased the metamorphosis of traditional health insurance into current "health insurance" became complete. Since so much of our current compensation is in the form of health benefits this reducing job mobility. By placing so much of health care in the domain of insurance companies you almost completely eliminate pricing information from the market and severely limit liquidity.

After health insurance became a major component of health care it increasingly became regulated by the government. Insurance companies providing health insurance where forbidden to provide it on a national and international scale. This limited there diversification, size, and power and thus thier ability to negotiate better deals for their customers. The insurance companies where forbidden to deny anyone care regardless of preexisting of current conditions limiting their ability to avoid extreme costs but also their ability to use pricing incentives to encourage healthy behavior. The limit on discrimination based on preexisting or current medical conditions doesn't discriminate between hereditary, genetics, and act of God medical conditions and malnourished, obese, sedentary, lifestyle choice discrimination. Without the ability to discriminate no incentives are in place for cost effective preventative care? Why should insurance companies pay for preventative care, extra checkups, dietitians, nutritionists, trainers, counseling, or other methods of prevention when the benefits to the insurers are so limited? Why should the insured act responsibly when they know they can not be turned down and when their premiums are set regardless of a healthy lifestyle choices? When the twenty year old health nut pays the same as the 80 year old alcoholic octogenarian smoker there is little incentive for healthy behavior from the insurance companies or their consumers.

On top of the onerous federal regulations that necessitate insurance bureaucracies, which necessitate hospital bureaucracies, every state adds further requirements in the form of additions on all policies. These can, and do, include such things as personal trainers, dietitians, councilors, but also yoga instructors, aromatherapy, chiropractors, hydrotherapy, acupuncturists, and other more nontraditional, and other efficacy questionable, medical treatments. All told there exist over 1900 additions in all 50 states. Where there are more additions there are fewer policies, fewer health insurance companies. and there premiums are higher and where there are fewer additions there are more policies, more insurance companies, and their premiums are lower. If you have close to 50 additions to all insurance policies all the policies begin to look the same and the selection decreases accordingly. If you only want simple catastrophic coverage you still have to pay for the additions, the majority of which you may never use, and still be forced to pay for them. These mandatory additions are often political favors to special interest groups at the expense of the consumer.

Many states legislate that employers offer health care. This reduces discretionary compensation and places many personal health care decisions in the hands of employers who are often simply unable to make the best decisions for all of their employees. Employers must decide on a health care plan, or small selection of plans, that is appropriate for the majority of their employees and at a reasonable price. What is appropriate for one employee is often inappropriate for another so the limited selection is inherently inefficient at providing the most appropriate care for employees. Since group plans are inherently somewhat homogeneous many end up paying for much more than they would have otherwise because they receive specific coverage they would not otherwise have purchased. Those who would have on their own purchased more comprehensive coverage are often unable to have it provided by their employee without additional supplementary policies further increasing the inefficiency. They must try to be fair with the coverage provided but with the knowledge that health insurance comes at the cost of discretionary compensation, i.e. wages and salary.

Because the consumer is so distanced from the payment of health care most don't have a clue as to how much their paying for their health care until they receive a bill from an insurance company or hospital. And most are forced to go to certain doctors covered by their insurance. The cost of health care is largely determined by the insurance company and the hospitals and doctors willing to accept them. Without this essential cost information there is no free market to speak of, its barely a market at all. This is why hospitals recommend more tests and prescribe more medication when insurance is paying. There is no pricing feedback model in place. Price is divested from the discretion of the consumer.

By eliminating Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or at least removing their tax exempt advantage, we would remove what was the initial impetus for the change in the "health insurance" definition. Remove the tax exempt status of health benefits and we remove the incentive, or mandate, for businesses to offer a disproportionate portion of compensation as health benefits and gives people back their money to pay for their own health benefits efficiently, or pay for whatever they want. Remove mandatory federal and state insurance additions and restore health insurance to its traditional role. Catastrophic health care would still be covered but With higher deductibles hospitals will be forced to compete with one another on pricing for the vast majority of health care without the interference of insurance companies or the state. Common health care services would go down in price with the insurance companies removed from the equation. There are examples of hospitals that don't accept any insurance charging much less than half the cost and publishing prices on cards and on the internet for easy comparison. Sometimes these insurance less doctors charged literally pennies on the dollar. Again this isn't hypothetical there are actual examples of this cost reduction. With federal and state regulation decreased as well as the removal of most of the mandatory health insurance additions companies could offer truly affordable catastrophic health insurance that would promote health by offering incentives for preventative care. They could offer discounts for exercise, nutrition, bmi, fat percentage, cholesterol, and other healthy lifestyle choices. If health care were offered in a similar fashion as term life insurance people could pay for 10 or 20 year catastrophic health care plans at very affordable rates, and with the separation of health care from employment it could follow you around indefinitely from job to job increasing career mobility. Health insurance plans that offer catastrophic coverage with a cumulative yearly general health stipend have had fairly impressive results in decreasing health care costs and is somewhat indicative of what would happen with a more radical but conceptually similar catastrophic without health insurance tax exemption and increased discretionary compensation model.

If national health insurance is supposed to reduce costs through large scale bargaining then it should work for private insurance companies. If increased use of information technology should increase efficiency, then removing privacy limitations on private insurance companies should allow them the same benefit. If offering a simple plan, without addons, for everyone reduces costs remove mandatory addons and it should work for private insurance companies. In fact almost all the cost cutting strategies congress is debating for a national insurance plan are denied private insurance companies. If these strategies are sound they should work for private insurance companies and they should be allowed the chance to try them. It these strategies are denied private insurance companies for ethical reasons then there is little reason to assume these moral qualms should melt away when politicians are involved.

Medicaid and Medicare increase the cost of health care by forcing businesses to accept lower compensation for goods and services than they would otherwise in a free market. By removing the patient completely from payment you invite overuse of medicaid and medicare. The loss of compensation is passed on the other patients in the form of higher fees often paid for by insurance companies. Those small businesses that can't afford the loss inherent in medicaid and medicare opt out and refuse to accept them. This has been and increasing problem in medicaid and medicare patients as fewer and fewer hospitals and doctors accept them. Sometimes patients have to drive hundred of miles to receive care because that is the closest hospital that accepts medicare and medicaid patients. By forcing the treatment of all who show up at emergency rooms without regard to their ability to pay you force both the doctors on duty and the hospitals they work in into a difficult situation. People overuse the emergency room if they don't have to directly pay for it, either because they have medicare or medicaid, contemporary insurance, or have no ability to pay at all. The doctor on duty must legally treat the patient in the emergency room regardless of the number of hours the doctor worked, their regular schedule previous plans etc. and the hospital must treat them regardless of whether they need emergency treatment or not. Some indigent people use the hospital emergency room as a source of free food and lodging while others use emergency rooms when there was no emergency, simply because of impatience on their part. All this increases the use of facilities, increases costs, and decreases their profitability. Many emergency rooms have shut down because the hospitals couldn't afford to keep them open. Eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, would further reduce the cost of health care and eliminate much of the waiting in the emergency rooms. This coupled with insurance reform like those mentioned above would result in further decreases in emergency room usage, again this was seen to happen with conceptually similar health insurance plans.

Of further note is the absence of the cost of regulation directly payed for by the taxpayer. Regulation requires regulators and with the incredible breadth and depth of health care regulations, from procedures and drug regulation, to health care workers and insurance regulation we pay literally billions to enjoy increased bureaucratic inefficiency.

As far as national insurance plan being cheaper it seems unlikely. The incentives for efficiency are inverted in bureaucracies. If you decrease your budget your budget is reduced next period while if you increase your spending you may show increased budgetary needs and get an increase in budget. There is also the lack of pricing mechanisms to measure efficiency requiring a rather inaccurate estimation of efficiency. The purpose of a bureaucrat is the maintenance and growth of the bureaucracy. Even the final given prices are extremely inaccurate. For instance the government when determining the cost of programs fails to take into account any and all administrative fees inherent in the collection of taxes. As surprising as it is to some people it costs money to collect money. These account account for 10% or more and therefore increase the cost to taxpayers that use these tax sources by 11% or more. The governments estimations also fail to take into account any and all supporting and supplementary resources. For instance In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is approximately $24,600 per child. The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the 2008 year, the local operating budget was $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. Add another 11% and you arrive at over $27,000 per pupil. All of these expenses are necessarily taken into account by private businesses like private health insurance companies. Actual costs to taxpayers are over 225% higher then the stated cost of $8,322. Often actual stated costs are two to three times estimated costs. Taken together if the government says it will cost 1 billion dollars if it is implemented they will almost certainly state that it ended up costing 2-3 billion and it may actually cost the taxpayer 6-9 billion. These are just examples but the idea that the government is going to be able to overcome the estimated 20-30% profit, they chose the some of the highest estimates, by increases in efficiency seems rather insanely idealistic given the accuracy of their past estimates.

Now if you wanted to add social insurance for those going through difficult times or for the those unable to pay for basic health care given these greatly reduced prices you could use a health care voucher program using a similar gradual compensation model, the less you make the more you get the more you make the less you get. For instance you make less than twenty thousand you get $3,000 a year to spend on health care as you see fit where you may get $2,000 if you make $40,000 gradually decreasing as compensating increases. With longer term catastrophic health care insurance extremely affordable you would be able to continue to pay for the continuation of current insurance and pay for common expenses as you see fit, dental, vision, acupuncture, aromatherapy etc. This simplicity would allow for the full freedom of the market, you get to spend the money on health care in the most efficient manner you can, and reduced regulatory burdens and expenses.

Now that was amazing. Thank you for the insight :-)

Last thing -

Taking a report from a new paper or 'official' report from the UK is no better then taking one from our own - it will inevitably be full of flaws.

Goodnight all.

True

Davids, you are not alone in your passion for such an issue. However threats of violence are not appreciated in any form no matter how you view your opposition.

sorry, I did not mean them as a threat of violence. I met that if this thing does pass, and ends up costing me and mine, I will bring the proof of that cost, and have more solid ground the next time this debate rolls around.

I am not a violent person, and am sorry it was taken that way - my humblest apologies.

hank goodness for this you tube video you went through the trouble of posting. my VIEWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG! the rich people doin the shot callin really do care about me! oh thank you thank you thank you!

i feel like i can fly now.
(SARCASM!)
-------
good. they should shoot all insurance companies and start up a solely government run system.

MC,

In the link you gave from scienceblogs - it states many informative things, and I thank you for posting it.

These are my arguments against, and I value your input since you are the only here who has posted anything meaningful in the comments yet:
http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2403
http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2133

I do have one problem with the links you gave me though - they leave out the side affects and the fact that the numbers themselves do not add up. Please respond, and thanks for your time.

davids,
I also really appreciate being able to have a normal conversation here. Not something I find a lot on current.
The problem with the articles you linked, is that they are pretty slanted.
"Questions About The Healthcare Reform Your Representative Doesn’t Want To Hear" Fails to mention a lot of things. For one, employers aren't based to provide health care based on any number of employees, but on the dollar amount of their payroll. On top of that, employers that do want to provide coverage get a small business tax credit.
It then goes to slate out some theoretical numbers. But it doesn't give credit to some big factors in the bill. It takes no account to the people paying to enroll into the public option. And then it gives no mention into the affordability credit system, and how that only people %400 below poverty level get entirely covered.
Again it doesn't to mention the lowered cost of prescription drugs for some people.
I've got to tell you that this blogger is really biased. "The Dangerous Evolution of Universal Healthcare Legislation" Starts off with writing that aims to undermine faith in much of any government program. Then the list of points from the health care bill 3200 are all... wrong. If you look at the bill itself, and the points that the blogger brings up, they are massive skews of the truth, taken entirely out of context, and pretty much false. All the way from rationing, to scaring you that a government committee decides what you get, they're skewed and wrong.
This is the full bill (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf)
And this is a pretty good, balanced summary (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf)

Actually, I have read the bill. The arguments I wrote about where in direct response to what my representative wrote to me.
If you believe that a govt run plan can be ran without a long list of side effects, then I would love to hear how.
I do not know how you interpreted the bill you read, but I read the very same one you gave me the link for. I don't know, maybe it was modified again?

Anyway, what portions of the bill are taken 'out of context?' and please, tell me in your own words, and not our government figure heads - even though I disagree with you, at least your being honest with me.

For starters, the blogger says:
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

That section outlines the creation of a panel of non federal employees and officers, who are form a committee that then creates the coverage of different plans. You can enroll in different plans, like you can with private insurance. Its not a panel of bureaucrats that looms over you while you're sick to decide what they'll do for you.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED

This is citing a section of the bill that outlines the "Essential Package." Nowhere is rationing the right description. If your car insurance covers up to 20,000 and you pay for anything over that, you wouldn't call it rationing. Heck, that section even mentions how coverage goes up annually. Its an essential package, you can choose that package, and if you do choose that- under your own free will, you get a certain amount of coverage a year.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice

Nowhere on that page, or in that section, is that found to be true. You can enroll in different packages, and if you are certain levels under the poverty level, you get affordability credits. There is a commissioner though, who oversees operations.

And these go on and on. Most of those points are like so. But I'm going over just one more.

Now I've looked into and discussed this one a lot recently.
Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Illegals already can buy health care in this country, and 38% did in 2007. They can do a lot of things one wouldn't think they could, I mean, they already arrived and stayed here illegally.
Because the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (or SAVE) program isn't included in this bill, illegals could theoretically enroll into it. And that would actually lessen the cost on taxpayers. But there is the possibility they could manage to obtain affordability credits. If they are below the poverty level, they could get affordability credits, which lessens the cost to them. And if you are 400& below the poverty level, you basically get free care. So if an illegal alien managed to enroll, and prove they are 400% below the poverty level, they could theoretically get free care. To be serious, not a lot of them are going to try that, and manage to do it. Though I agree it is a problem that needs to be worked out. But the reality is that this is an immigration issue. Not a health care reform issue.

I like this, I think its important to listen to the other side of the issue frequently, because neither one is always right.

MC,

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Note that it does say it will determine what plans you will get to choose from. However these plans are created without your choice as to what electives you get. The committee will make plans that you will either have to enroll in regardless of whether you want them or not. Your only way out of this is by purchasing private insurance, or pay a fee for being uninsured. This does not sound free at all to me. So yes, in many ways, it will determine what care you get. Read between the lines and remember that government interpretation is far different from that the rational mind produces. If you doubt this, then please write to Representative Patrick Murphy 8th District PA, and explain to him that he is wrong in his interpretation.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED

You choose the essential package (once again, not one with the electives you want, but a choice from pre-determined packages). It does indeed say it will go up annually, but I do not see how this is fiscally possible without more revenue. Where are you seeing that we have a real choice? I know we do not have a real choice now because state law and regulations limit it, but then the simple and cheaper answer would be to remove the interfering state laws that make affordable private care skyrocket.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice.

Once again, you have to choose from premade packages that may not fit your needs. How is this free choice?

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

This will not lessen the price on taxpayers due to illegals. Think about it. Lets even assume that they will be good aliens and pay their govt healthcare bill while not paying taxes. I don’t know about you, but a they are so far below the 400% poverty level that most of them would be able to get it cheap if not for free, therefore more money will need to come from somewhere? Or do they have a money tree somewhere? Sorry, that wasn’t called for I know, but seriously, where would this money come from?

As to the rest, I only have to say this – what authorizes the government to impose healthcare anyway? Are you thinking the ‘general welfare’ clause? If so, that is not what it means. I will say one thing, the very idea that so many people are buying the bull and begging for a more socialist intervention to solve a problem that was created by these people to begin with through poor legislation makes me sick. We are lied to day after day by our government, and here we are asking them to plan our healthcare?
For instance, they say that this will not eliminate private care, yet imposes fees on non-participants, medical supply and drug companies who do not follow the governments new regulations. This will drive prices through the roof, and people will be forced to abandon it. Once again, if you disagree with this, just write my congressman Patrick Murphy, and explain to him your interpretation of the bill because it sure as hell isn’t what he’s telling me.

Besides, I am an American, and I know my history. When bureaucracies take over, it turns itself into a self feeding machine. This is no different, and a blatant attempt to place even more responsibility to the government because peoples right to choose has already been taken by the same powers. Also please address this- How is this feasibly being paid for?

Okay,
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Right in the bill, it says "non federal employees or officers." Though they are appointed by the President and Comptroller General, they are not federal employees or officers. And they decide what the different packages are. You have to pay for some line of care, and they decide what the different lines you can buy are. The same thing goes for private right now. How else can we buy a health care package without it being defined.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED
I know you dislike this whole deal of public option, but I explained how this is not rationing. That was the argument with this. You pay for this amount of coverage, you get it. You can choose this package or another in the public option, or a private plan.

I forgot to link this last time. http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200
It explains the illegal issue in full. I stand by what I said before. I said that if illegals enrolled in health care, and paid for it, it would lessen he cost on taxpayers. And it would. But not a lot are going to do that. And it is possible, that an estimated half of the population of illegals is under the 400% poverty line. Theoretically they could manage to enroll in affordability credits. But to be real, hardly any would. It's an immigration issue, not health care.

I know you don't like the idea of the government requiring health care. But there is certainly a plus for everybody. When someone gets in an accident, and winds up getting a lot of care at the hospital, they burden would no longer be on the taxpayers and a single hospital, and then therefore on the patients of that hospital. If everyone had health care, everyone would be paid for. And you wouldn't pay the cost of somebody that didn't have it. Similar to being in an auto accident with someone that didn't have auto insurance. On top of that, we'd have a healthy country.

There will also be new rules about the cost of prescriptions for some, and caps on out of pocket spending.

Here is some more fact checking from factcheck.org. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
I know its not me, but its something to read.

Look, davids, I'm an American too. And I know my history as well. There have been a lot of successful government programs. I've also spent time working in the UK, where they have the NHS, government run health care. The NHS is loved, and is working well for them. But we aren't doing that specifically. We're possibly providing government run options, alongside private, something similar to what the Swiss do. And so far, its doing well for them.

MC,

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

You compare the government chosen programs with the ones issued by private companies. Note the trend here. Healthcare is expensive now because states heavily regulate the insurance companies (and yes some of them benefit off of it). The only difference here is that instead of the private companies making plans to choose from, the government will hence the above statement. Being that the states currently regulate healthcare (and do a damn poor job of it), this will simply switch it to federal, creating a lot more wasted funds due to higher administration cost. It will also further the distance from the patient to their provider. Also note many other previous sections in the bill that state that the comptroller will have a whole slew of ‘aids’. Because these little minions are not government, they will not be answerable to us the people, only to their govt employer – if we have a problem with it, we will just have to deal with it. Maybe a better phrase would have been ‘government run’. I can tell you as an ex-govt employee that this is a truly bad idea, and you have yet to prove me wrong. Have you ever once tried to question a federal mandate or issue if you have one without having to get a lawyer? If you have, you will know just how difficult (if not impossible) and expensive this can be.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED
See above (this coincides with the reasoning, and if you want to continue putting your own spin on it, there is nothing I can do about it).

Even in the link you sent me, the author(s) state that the results are uncertain. They further admit that there is no enforcement mechanism currently in place to prevent it from happening. The very same report also states that cost will go from the current 4.3 billion dollars (all govt levels), to 30.5. How will this save money again? Tha SAVE program was defeated by the house. This also assumes that amnesty is not passed, and in our current rogue congress, I do not see this as an impossibility.

‘I know you don't like the idea of the government requiring health care. But there is certainly a plus for everybody.’
You have yet to explain this. In fact you went on to state the following:
‘When someone gets in an accident, and winds up getting a lot of care at the hospital, they burden would no longer be on the taxpayers and a single hospital, and then therefore on the patients of that hospital. If everyone had health care, everyone would be paid for. And you wouldn't pay the cost of somebody that didn't have it. Similar to being in an auto accident with someone that didn't have auto insurance. On top of that, we'd have a healthy country.’
You say that everything would be paid for. I asked you in the last comment how this is possible, and you have yet to provide a list of where the funds would come from. Actually, I will give you credit. You did indeed say that it will only cost those who pay for it. This is simply not true. Sorry but its not.
You say there are many successful government programs. Name one.
I do not know what people you have talked to form the UK who like the system there, but this does not coincide with what two friends of mine have told me. You also fail to mention the financial impact on the UK economy, and sorry, news paper reports do not count. I want the links to the UK national budget as proof, nothing else would be accurate.
If you did know your history as you claim, then please tell me, what great Nation was it that fell only when it adopted democracy and the welfare system? Also tell me the contiributing financial factors that mirror even what we are seeing today.

Also remember that the UK belongs to the EU, and as such, will never be able to provide a true financial accounting as so many people have their hands in the pot.

Being that you ‘know your history’, then why is it you are unable to give our forefathers credit for seeing ‘big government’ as a problem? Also if you really do know your history, then please explain to me why government programs always claim to fix a problem, but only end up making an system that is only sustainable with high inflation and a ponzi scheme like structure. Also, Switzerland is a nation much smaller then our own, its people hold a lot more common sense, and its debt isn’t what ours is (ie – they can actually pay for their programs).

Also being American, I hate the idea of how one ‘socialist program’ gets enacted in such a way as this Healthcare Legislation by saying it will help the people, but it doesn’t because the principles behind it never change. When you can explain to me one successful long term government program that was enacted at a federal level, and the effects it created, I will take your interpretation of this seriously. Until then I cannot.

Thanks for your response, and be assured that I am not trying to be rude, just trying to make a point. Once again, thank you for debating this like an adult and not a child, it is most refreshing.

davids,
Despite your conclusion of saying you were not being rude- you were. Flat out. The breath of fresh air this was, is gone. Saying I'm giving things a spin, snappy conclusions, and then asking me to provide proof that the UK system works but then saying there is no way to account for it because they are in the EU.
You won't accept a press report, want proof of data from their budget, but won't accept that because the EU has their "hands" in the pot. Then I guess I can't persuade you on that subject, because nothing will do. Will any coworkers or acquaintances count then? One of the first articles I linked touched on how no British politician would dare touch the NHS.
Government programs that have worked? How about WWII? Stopping racism and lynching? The moon landing? Interstate highways? Don't get off on the fringe here, man, we were having a good debate.
I'm seeing that my reasoning has gotten nowhere.
You can't listen to any one source. When you learn from other sources, and look into things more, you're view can change, and that's okay. That's reason and maturity at work.
Launching to the extremes is radical, and usually not good. Listening and learning is great.
Why are Americans more upset about the possibility of tax dollars going to helping each other than funding Blackwater committing war crimes in Iraq? I don't know.
Either soon, or someday in the future, it is likely that this country will provide some line of public option. It has been rolling that way for a long time. Someday we will see just how good, or bad, or mediocre it will all be. We'll see.
Check out a large variety of news sources, even ones you may not agree with completely at first.
Until then, I may just run in to you again here on current, davids.

MC,

You are right, and I apologize - sometimes I tend to be to hot-headed for my own good.

Trust in anything does not come easy to me, and I apologize if that made me sound unreasonable. I did go a little far on what counts as acceptable proof. So in an effort to expand my horizons, I will continue to read the links you send (and yes I will read them).

I did not mean programs like highways, NASA, etc. , and I apologize for the general statement. I met along the lines of social security, medicare, economic policies, and the department of education. Things like that.

Once again I am apologizing in an attempt to keep lines of communication open with the only other person here who takes the time to reason who is on the opposite side of the fence from myself.

MC

PS - I am hardly a radical, and have read more then my fair share. If anything my personal experience having watched and worked with government have caused the distrust I feel, and my background in history makes it even more so.

I re-read my reply by the way, and once again, am sorry about that - come on, two apologies in one day - how can you pass that up?

So you like slavery and force?

Preech the truth! I have a working theory that davids and shanky are health care lobbyists, paid to attack/mold the ideas/discussions in the one true forum of the people ... TEH INTERWEBS!!!
...its either that or they're suckin on the Caux News. I guess I'd just rather believe that they're lobbyist cuz its fun to pummel them.
Furthermore, boobies.

That doesn't jibe with what I've seen. The Organizations I see him most associated with are the peacefredomprosperity site, the Ludwig Von Missus Institute, and the last Ron Paul presidential campaign.

Bomb,

Thank you.

I want it understood that I am not an unreasonable person. I am just tired of my life being imposed upon to help someone I feel no obligation to help. This is keeping me from taking care of my family, which is why I BLOG and write the articles I do on peace freedom and prosperity.

Jubie,
I never met to upset you or start a series of childish responses. I just fail to see why I should pay for your care, and fail to understand why you don;t look deeper into the issues affecting you. You say you have a pre-existing condition - fine, but this typically requires more expensive treatment. I have written several articles covering this so far, and wish you would take the time to read them before blowing up at me. I plainly state in my articles how I do not like health insurance companies actions, but one must also examine tort cases, regulation cost etc. I am not asking that you just agree with everything I say, just that you read and understand both sides before attacking either.

Thanks

@ david80
sorry if there was a misunderstanding here. My comment was actually directed at shanklinmike, the original poster. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. The comment chain has gotten very long here and the organizational methods on this site are a bit primitive compare to some.

its cool - sry to have bothered you then

Democracy is nothing more then mob rule controlled by an oligarchy, and that is a historical fact.

The fact is that it would take 24 lifetimes to read all the laws and executive orders passed through congress and the presidents.
Beaurocracy is expensive to maintain and accomplishes less then sleeps on.
Government and interference from Financial institutions (like the fed) along with foolish actions taken by the majority are why prices are so high. Before govt got involved in healthcare, it was a heck of a lot cheaper.
Social security was created when congress was lobbied by special interest in the the early 1935 to pay for the retirement of the elderly - many of whom lost their savings when the market crashed in early 1930. I could go on and on about that in and of itself, but do not have enough space here.
In short govt involvement = big mess.

Balls in your court.

Government is the reason why health care is in shams now! Decades of horrible regulations by politicians and bureaucrats got us to where we are at.....to the point where corporate entities are oligopolized and protected. If you can't stop to see that, then you are lost on history. Peace

A-freakin-men

HOooollldd up here! THAT"s your point? You're arguing for legalized organ trafficking?!!

*facepalm*

Please review that arguments made the last time this came up on current.
http://current.com/items/90661698_should-organ-donors-be-paid.htm
http://current.com/items/90783072_our-sons-plundered-for-their-organs.htm
http://current.com/items/89798023_teen-attempts-suicide-to-donate-liver-to-fathe...
http://current.com/items/90793254_china-admits-death-row-organ-use.htm

Organ trafficking is a horrible idea. i can see how you think it might be OK with that flawed economics system of yours, but when the human desperation factor is added things go south very very fast and hard. Iran has a kidney sale system and it does not work well.

Yeah bomb.....Iran is a great example of a free society going haywire.....

Can you believe this guy? Acting like these oligopolized systems of the world even come close to portraying the free society we are discussing.

Your prohibitionist efforts have killed millions of patients who could of been helped. Thanks for your horror stories, but I will take liberty over your death trap anyday.

These people are having their organs stolen BECAUSE of prohibition, not because of freedom.

You fail again!

For the 100th million time, we are against the current government oligopolized insurance system as well.

Is this the kind of "compassion" your slavery system will display?!?.....

I think you are confusing two definitions of liberty.

The one you are apparently proposing is Feral Liberty. With no laws or regulations everyone just grabs what they can get by Guile or Force with no regard to the needs or opinions of anyone else .

Unfortunately such places are found around the world and throughout history. The results are never good, and often revert to mostly worse, as the biggest and baddest kills off those less big or less ruthless. In even somewhat civilized countries, the prisons are mostly full of such sorts.

In Socialized Liberty there are indeed rules, and an unsocialized person might indeed feel oppressed at having to abide by them. But since everyone in the society is more empowered, and safer in their dealings with others the result is a lot more liberty, and a stronger and better economy that produces actual non-poisonous things instead of credit default swaps or the equivalent .

Yes insurance companies have many issues too. What John forgot to add was the layers of bureaucracy that would be added to this already destroyed system that further ensure that the government gets more money recieved then the patients or hospitals.
If you go to the .gov website that handles medicare etc., and also look at stimulus funding, you will find that less then 50% of the collected taxes etc. go to the hospitals and patients.
What makes matter worse is that the more money the govt gets for these projects the more spend (this is usually to their use-or-lose policy creating an unsustainable addition to an already bloated project).
So as bad as private insurance companies can be - expect the government to be even worse.

davids,

Worse? Why worse when we already have a 36 battle plans of what to be LIKE? More efficient, more preventative and better quality. What are these battle plans? The other health care systems in the world ranked higher than ours. Reform is wonderful, if you like putting a paper bag over the face of a fat chick to get your rocks off but the facts stay the same, you're gonna need to man the harpoons afterwards to get the whale outta your bed.
We need a public option, not a fat chick with a paper bag.

36 battle plans? Sir, what are you smoking and where can I get some? They are ranked higher based on mortality rate – much of this is due to the lifestyle many Americans choose to live and not the system!
Also, if you have not read the package, then please shut up. I spent a lot of time reading it, and get upset when people like you open your yap spewing crap you know nothing about.
Please use educated arguments next time instead of media drivel and childish analogies.

HR3200- sure there are multiple versions etc. Being that theres more is even worse. It means that if they pass a differant one, we will be screwed.

That having been said, I am dropping from this thread. Yu obviously are not reading anything, just spounting nonsense you see on the news or hear from your friends etc.

Trying to fight self ordained ignorance is like trying to hold back the tide - if the person is quicker to attack rather then investigate, you can only let them face the consequences of the subsequent actions taken upon them by the system they ignorantly promoted.

Enjoy it.

Bye bye Davids, sorry you won't be seeing that check from Aetna today.
KTHXBAI!!
PS - TY for GTFO my Current LOBBYIST!!

not justice - pure stupidity

I concur. Preventative healthcare and stop drinking your ass into a corner FTW!

We actually are in favor of reform....so don't go acting like the only reform is government slavery.....you fascists and socialist central planned enslavers just don't get it do you......and we hate Fox....

For goodness sakes, understand what a libertarian is......

I am tired of the right calling me a leftist crazy and the left calling me a rightist crazy just because they are too lazy to read something from von Mises or Friedrich Hayek......for goodness sakes read a Hazlitt book for a change and quit acting like your slavery is better than freedom! What we have today is a government oligopolized insurance system....government monopolized health care is a step in the wrong direction. We need to end this slave government protected insurance industry and NOT encourage government slavery....both parties are wrong....

Mike, nobody here said any of those things about you or Libertarians. Defensive, sheesh.

shank,

Government monopolized health care? Let me drop some names for you: Medicare, MediCal and VA Healthcare.
It is good enough for our senior citizens, our children and even our troops ... but somehow, someway, it's just no good for non-disabled, non-military persons between the ages of 18 to 55. Your argument makes perfect sense ... to someone accustomed to used swiss cheese to patch gaps in logic.
Also, quit saying 'we' like you speak for all of Current viewers. You don't and you aren't. STFU. KTHXBAI!
Also, you're right. It is possible that you aren't a Republicunt and that you have just sold out your beliefs in order to make some quick cash blogging/commenting for the insurance companies. GTFO my Current LOBBYIST!!

Jubie,

it is not good enough for our senior citizens. If the newer generation were not paying for it, it wouldn't exist - today this is called a ponzi scheme. Also, social security only pays out less then 50% of what is collected to seniors etc, and has spent 99% of its stimulus money already. How is this considered successful?

Unless a child breaks an arm or something, they need little healthcare, just good parenting ( I have a son of my own, I know). As for private healthcare being unaffordable - show me real numbers to prove this. Yes it is getting more and more expensive, but half of that cost goes to cover tort, false claims, and coverage made to people like the one stated in this article. Remove the bureaucracy bull, remove the FDA from the picture (they test nothing anyway), remove interstate regulation, and prices would fall from there from the savings alone. Government Need not be involved at all.

As for veterans - they have earned it, and BTW - VA has NOTHING to do with any public healthplan you idiot. If you find any real document proving otherwise, I want to see it.

Otherwise, healthcare is not a right. By placing the government as the payer of the individuals health, you take away personal responsibility and place it the people as whole - aka socialism.

Besides,this was not the principles our country was founded on anyway - if you are so excited about another countries healthcare that defies America's purpose, why don;t you move instead of begging our American rights to be taken away to pay for your idea 'general welfare'.

Furthermore, by taking money away from the private market to pay for government programs, it will only drive up private care...

Dear Lord! Does anyone here bother to investigate before yapping off??!!!