Health Care Policy

[GernBlansten]

What you describe is how the third world handles its health care system.

[TheScout]

Perhaps. But without the amazing wealth and knowledge that exists in America that has never existed at any place in the world, ever.

 

I do not know what is so bad about individual responsibility, famalies, charities, and local and state governments providing care? Maybe you can explain that.

[GernBlansten]

Greed. America is saturated by it.

[TheScout]

American charity is the greatest in the world.

 

Government policies have probably lessened this.

 

I chuckle a bit at the thought that one would think the federal government could stamp out greed.

 

One easily forgets that the profit motive was responsible for the great wealth at our hands now.

[GernBlansten]

"I chuckle a bit at the thought that one would think the federal government could stamp out greed. "

 

And I am awestruck to think that someone might consider free enterprise as the remedy to stamp out greed.(This message has been edited by gernblansten)

[TheScout]

I prefer to call it self-interest.

[GernBlansten]

If consistency were a virtue, you'd be a saint. I actually find it refreshing. Not like the hypocrisy some demonstrate here.

[TheScout]

LOL, thank you.

 

I would consider it a virtue.

 

Not to start another debate though. : )

[OldGreyEagle]

First, we need to look at what we call health Care. For most people its the family physician, but its so much more.

 

Does health care include the motorized wheelchairs that are advertised on TV as being basically "FREE". The compnay works with Medicare and your insurance and if the compnay says you get one, you get one with no cost to you. Who pays for that? (This is an example, I don't want to take anybody's wheel chair from them"

 

Will the same policy cover physicians and hopsitals? Hospitals already due to EMTALA legislation cannot refuse treatment to anyone who presents, a physician can elect who he/she will treat.

 

The Government tells the physician how much money they will get when treating a Medicare or Medicaid patient, so , how do we keep getting physicians if we cap the earnings potential?

 

What if we socialize Medicine, or rather further socialize Medicine to its final point? Should there be rates for better risks? Smokers? Sorry, no care or at a premium, then if you are 10% overweight, you pay 10% more in premiums, and so on. If genetic testing is used and if you are predisposed to breast cancer, why not prophylacticly remove them. In fact, if you don't and you get breast cancer, why should it be covered, you had your chance.

 

Prenatal care is a big issue, so many congenital problems occur because the mother smokes, does drugs, doesnt eat correctly, dosen't excercise, do we have the pre-natal police? Testing your blood randomly to be sure the mother is behaving properly? Or at least within "Limits"? And what is the recourse? Pre-natal holding cells? A healthy baby is the the right of the state?

 

If you are diabetic or prone to diabetes, are you taxed more if you are above your target weight? Do you "have" to participate in state run excercise programs? Should all fertilized eggs be collected and cared for with modifications to them so they are predisposed to be happy in needed jobs? Embryos set in spinning centrifuges so they will only be happy when spinning? Great trainning for Space Station mechanics or Carnival ride operators. A Brave New World indeed.

 

How do we get to socialized medicine? Wipe out private insurance? How many people is that? How much money does the country have invested in Insurance stock? What happens to the employees? Do we reduce the R&D in equipment, in surgical techniques?

 

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride"(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[TheScout]

Don't worry the government will sort it all out. They do a good job of such a thing, right?

[vol_scouter]

Most insurance companies no longer insure health, they only manage company's plan with no actual risk themselves. They can be easily bought off by allowing them to manage the government run programs. They get a sure income stream at no risk. The Clinton's missed this in the 90's. I doubt that Obama will make the same mistake.

 

The pharmaceutical companies are a different story. Since the left and the news media has demonized them so much, they may not have enough political clout to prevent a change.

 

Hospitals and professionals are not rich enough nor well organized enough to prevent this disaster from occurring.

 

When socialized, the public will get worse care that takes longer to deliver and will cost more. Unlike now, the public will have no alternatives. Obama is sending signals through Daschle that he wants a British style system. That is a two tier system where the elite wealthy class can purchase what they wish in the way of health care and the public suffers with an inferior system.

[GernBlansten]

If the British system is so inferior to ours, why haven't the Brits cast it off and emulated our system?

[TheScout]

Because they are not as good as us.

 

That was the reason for the Revolution.

[2eagles]

Gern

Having lived in a country with socialized medicine NO NO NO We have problems not easy ones but much better than the socialized medicine world.

Ask yourself -- if it is so great why do brits, canadians etc (those who can afford to)come here for treatment.

[frankj]

I think the answer to Blansten's question as to why the British don't toss their socialized medicine system can be answered by the following. 1) The political will does not exist. There are enough socialist politicians in power to block such action and possibly, the politicians who might be so inclined to change, may just be rich enough to provide for themselves by private care, so why bother? 2) The generation(s) (?) who have grown up under socialized medicine don't know any difference and/or can't conceive of a better system.

 

Where have most of the medical innovations taken place in say, the last 20 years? In a country with socialized medicine, or in one with a system like ours, where the inventor stands to be rewarded financially for something new. Would the incentive be there in a country where the government controls the level of treatments? If a certain drug seems to work OK for a certain illness, and that is what government approves, why would someone try to find something better? What would be the incentive? Who would fund the research? In a socialist system it certainly would not be funded out of corporate profits, would it? Just a question. Maybe GernBlansten has the answers. We are waiting to hear from you.