The study of economics is the study of scarcity, and the allocation of scarce resources. The principles on how we address scarcity have been developed over centuries. The perfect example of this scarcity comes for Thomas Sowell. In his book basic economics Sowell uses Beach front property as an example of a scarcity. Suppose that the government would dictate that everyone is entitled as a basic human right to a beach front home. This of course could never be accomplished because there isn't enough property on the beach for everyone to have a home.
We find the exact same dynamic in health care. To become a doctor you must go through years of education and training. This training is costly both in terms of dollars, and the time invested. But the tools the doctors use, mri machines, x-ray machines, surgical tools and facilities are also scarce, technically difficult to develop and thus the price is high.
In short, there are very few mechanisms in place to allow the price to fall, and it can never fall enough that all of the health care that everyone wants can be made available to everyone.
We are left with the beach front property conundrum. Logically there are only two choices if we are to socialize medicine. We can either ration health care by lottery, or politicians can see that their friends and supporters get the care.
Most politicians of the left respond that we will of course ration the care, but we ration it based on need. Politicians on the right will of course agree that we must ration the care, but would rather it be rationed by individual choices and based on price. This leaves the decision to the individual and the doctor or health care provider. If no agreement can be made, or the individual cannot afford the care, he cannot expect to receive such care as he may want, and even need.
The left than of course responds that this is unfair. Why should a rich man be allowed to have a heart transplant, but not the poor man.
The problem with this approach is that the scarcity still exists.
The resources dictate that everyone cannot have a heart transplant. The doctor the nurses and the manufacturers of medical equipment must also be paid for their effort. So in essence, the rich man still must pay for the heart transplant through higher taxes, but the poor man may get the transplant.
Thus we are back to the lottery, or the corruption. The politicians decides either by picking a name out of a hat, or giving the transplant to his friend who may be either poor or rich. The left is attempting to have it both ways, but the truth of the matter is, this is impossible. Where the left is deceptive is in the philosophy. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both realized that the scarcity of resources required a decision to be made. Marx said the politicians should make the choice, Smith said the choice should be made by the individual. Modern politicians say that no choice need be made. We simply remove the scarcity. What they cannot do is explain how this would ever be possible. The reason they cannot explain it, is that there is no solution to this particular scarcity.
|
|
| 
|
|
Right now, as it stands, Icababe, an insurance company can decide for you which doctors you can see, which operations they will cover, which hospitals you can go to, and if they don't feel like paying for a particular thing, they simply won't. Right now, it's a CEO who is taking your money to light his cigars telling you who you can see, where you can see him, and what they will pay to have done. Sounds rather tyrannical, if you ask me. You're defending this? It would be one thing if, after all this, the American system is the best in the world, but I don't think anyone can say that and expect to be taken seriously. We have an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba's! Senior citizens get in buses here in Phoenix and drive down to Nogales at the border to get their prescriptions filled. Why would anyone support this?
What do you mean, how do I decide costs? How are these things decided now? The free market? When 50% of bankruptcies occur because of overwhelming medical expenses, I fail to see how the free market has the best interests of real people. When I keep hearing the statistics--not anecdotes, statistics--that Medicare pays only 2% in overhead and United pays over 50%, it's obvious your money is being better spent with Medicare.
And you point is, Icababe? Just cut to the chase.
The AMA (American Medical Association) has quotas of the number of people allowed to become doctors, and they have a strong lobbying body. Does anyone here actually believe there's a single politician in Washington who's going to go to the mat with those groups?..... Let's say that you do manage to bring in 50k doctors. Who's going to oversee them, make sure they're competent, and what protections will people have against the incompetent ones? A few malpractice cases will kill any new program dreamed up...... Who decides who gets to see the doctor who spent ten extra years in school to become a specialist, and who gets the green doctor fresh out of medical school (who graduated 99 out of 100)?
LC- i think you are right- i think small incremental steps could help this cause go a long way. I totally agree with the preventative measures. as one of the uninsured- i only go to the ER when i am really really sick.
How are we paying for it now? I believe that we need more streamlined walk in clinics, push to import more doctors until we can train more ourselves, HEAVILY utilize nurse practitioners (who can handle the bulk of the cases), and I absolutely cannot stress enough taking preventative measures. I believe that the bulk of medical cases today are preventable. This all, of course, will not happen overnight, but we need to ease our way into things and add services as we go. I am for smaller regional studies trying different things, with the eased expansion of the ones that work, until a system that works emerges. The simple fact is that as things stand right now, we are screwed. We really don't have a choice in the matter, particularly with they baby boomers hitting their golden years in not too long.
But you still haven't addressed the issue economically. How do you pay for it? And when the price is lower, how do you effectively ration the care. Lower prices will lead to more people using medical services. Anecdotally, you are of course correct, but it still does not address the larger problem. How do you decide who of 300 million people get which survices, and what if anything do they pay?
What America are you talking about? How many years does someone have to wait for a compatible organ for a transplant? You are aware that half of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by overwhelming medical bills, something that is unheard of in Western Europe? You're also aware we have an infant morality rate in this country worse than Cuba's, right? "If you need surgery"... You forgot to say, AND your insurance will cover it, AND you can afford it, AND you can find a doctor who works under yor insurance plan, AND you can find the right donor if you need a transplant, AND your insurance will cover therapy AND a lengthy hospital stay AND a home nurse AND affordable medicine. You conveniently left all that out. I would much rather wait four months, knowing I will get the surgery, than worry about whether or not my insurance in the States feels like covering it, or what other surprises they'll have for me when I'm at my most vulnerable. I would much rather wait an extra month to have that surgery in the UK than to have to sell my home to pay for overwhelming medical costs for the same procedure here.
Hawaii tried the same thing Arjay. Systemic causation resulted in people making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, opting for "free" healthcare and overwhelmed the system. The United States is one of the few countries left where if you need surgey you can schedule it in a matter of weeks. In the UK the average wait time is four months.
Here in Arizona we have AHCCCS (we just call it Access), which was intended to be a quick fix measure, a stop-gap, to assist low-income families with their medical bills. It has, of course, been overrun by undocumented immigrants, and where it was originally intended to cover the costs for those without coverage, it now covers one in four Arizonans. In 2004 I ended up voting for Prop 202, which would have cut such coverage for illegals, because, even though I believe all human beings should have access to health care, AHCCCS was not set up to take on so many people, and I voted for it to keep the system from breaking. I had to draw the line at citizenship, and I didn't like it. Prop 202 still hasn't gone into law, it's tied up in the courts.
okay arjay move to california where we have our wonderful government ran hcare system, sarcasm btw
In other words, Friday's nightmare about socialized medicine is a work of fiction.
There is a good book about socialist healthcare written by Tom Clancy. It's about a man who loses his wife in an appendectomy because the soviet socialist doctor was drunk when he did the surgery. The doctor was paid the same whether he did well or had too much vodka. That man who lost his wife, in Tom Clancy's story, happens to be a submarine captain and decides to defect to the USA where instead of guaranteed health, employment, and wages, he can find freedom and opportunity.
Lol, collateral damage ;)
If you gave free gym memberships, the divorce rate would skyrocket.
What we are neglecting to consider is the fact that we already have socialized health care - in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Some states, such as New York, have additional coverage for people who make too much for those programs, and not enough for private insurance. A problem encountered is the lack of awareness and enrollment. The simple fact is that people who have insurance (from the government or private) end up costing less for all of us in the end, due to preventative medicine, which is what we all desperatley need more of. This requires a multifaceted approach, one tied in with the farm bills to make healthy foods cheaper and more available, and also we must promote healthy living, such as free gym memberships. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I can't think of a better reason to vote Socialist!
With the way the government is run, by both Democrats and Republicans, any so-called universal healthcare proposal is doomed to failure. Why? Because neither side of the aisle gives a damn about the regular people...... Someone is probably going to spout some nonsense about how Democrats want to change the lives of working class Americans, and I'll tell you flat out it's a crock. They just appealed to the most tractable of the population. Things will be no better in four years than they are now. We'll just have a larger government..... Don't get me wrong. Even if the Republicans were still in control we'd have a larger government in four years...... I urge you all to read a book called The Last Centurion. While it is a book of fiction, many of the same problems are discussed freely in that book.......... Obama is a politician. He owes a lot of people. Take a look at the appointments he's made. He will not go to the mat against the AMA and other organizations which keep medical costs high. So all this argument about which side can do it better is moot...... ALL politicians will look out for themselves, and the people who have the biggest wallets. Period. Instead of arguing about which politician is the second coming, how about discussing how to vote the bums out?
Thats right libby, we could end the war by breaking out the bongos and singing a few bars of Kumbaya. That will make the terrorist love us huh?
A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy. b russell
agreed, Lib.
what i find odd is that we spend money to kill people, build more weapons of destruction, yet can't find a way to take care of sick?
because clinton lacked the balls to fight gingrich and the other wacky retard-licans. Obama has 68% APPORVAL ratings and wide Democratic margins in both houses of Congress, so this the perfect time to get it done.
As for conservatism, it appeals to the worst aspects of human nature. Greed and fear are the most common.
I think the issue of national health care has been dodged for decades by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Most Republicans I talk to are all for every American having some form of access to the health care system, they disagree with the notion that it has to be a governmentally based, everybody-in system. Please, Lib, a little fairness, please? The problem wasn't solved when Bill Clinton was in office, either.
We do have the best heath care system, but only the wealthy can afford the best care. We spend more money on health care than any other country, yet others have lower infant mortality rates, fewer preventable deaths, higher life expectancies etc. The problem is where the money goes. Some 30% goes to for-profit ensurers and that's what's wrong.
oh they are conserva-turds, retard-licans, ect. Anyone who doesn't support healthcare for everyone is all of those and more!
lol
Whoa, Lib, that's two posts in a row where you didn't call someone a conserva-turd. I hope you're not going through withdrawal.
That fact is America spends more and more money with nothing to show for it. So what’s wrong with our system? Is it the number of Americans who have little or no health insurance? Is it the lack of adequate preventive care? Is it the lack of an appropriate primary care system? Is it the greedy doctors and pharmaceutical companies? Is it the lack of adequate medical data collection, analysis and incentive to change what doctors and hospitals are doing? It is all of those and that is why WE DO NOT have the best Healthcare system and why the whole system is broken.
America has the highest cost per capita, twice what other major industrialized countries spend, for health care, and has dropped to last among 19 countries on a measure of mortality amenable to medical care. Is this what you call a great healthcare system?
The anonymous, longwinded reply with a decidedly leftist slant was written by me, Arjay.
Eric, I appreciate the explanation. Scarcity, however, implies there is a finite amount of it. There are only so many beaches around the world, so many gallons of oil to pump out of the ground, so much iron ore we can dig out of the mountains. I don't know if the same is necessary for health care, because we can product more doctors, more nurses, than there currently are. We can seek altenative medicines, just as we can seek alternative means of transportation when we run out of oil. The commodity itself is benign, it's what we do with it that matters. In most every aspect of life, there are alternatives, riding a bus instead of a car to save the commodity of oil, going to the golf course instead of using the commodity of beach front property. We have choice in a lot of these, some inconvenient, but the choices are there. Health care, however, doesn't fall into this. The problem with American health care is not the scarcity of it, truly, were access to it not dominated by insurance companies and the FDA (I'm going after both the corporate world and the government here), the costs would come down. Because it's being bogarted and controlled so tightly by both, the so-called scarcity occurs. Were insurance companies not running at 50% overhead costs and giving their CEO's ridiculous salaries and golden parachutes, while at the same time telling the client what they will and won't cover (many times in a time of crisis when coverage is denied), the cost would come down dramatically. Were the FDA to lighten up on so many restrictions on medicines, they would be not only more affordable, but more effective. I am convinced there are cures for cancer, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS, any purveyor of natural medicine would tell you the same if they didn't fear being sued by the FDA, all of which don't require surgery or painful therapies, all of which are found in Nature, all of which are available in usable forms at your local health food store (depending on the mood of the FDA). The point is, Eric, the "scarcity" of affordable health care is artificial, it's made so on several fronts, and it doesn't have to be this way, but as so long as it is seen as a commodity, it will be manipulated in the name of profit and power.
Getting back to the topic of scarcity. That is one heck of a tall order. First, you'd have to get rid of all the medical lobbyists. Then you'd have to fight the American Medical Association. Yes, they do have a quota system for doctors. Those big time heart surgeons can't charge top dollar if there are fifty others who can do the same things. As Eric said, supply and demand...... Let's say that all of a sudden healthcare was free, and there are still all the restrictions of becoming a doctor. Well, first you'd have to find people willing to become doctors in a system that didn't reward them for their hard work. Demand for doctors would go up a thousand fold, and the number of doctors would fall....... Then you'd probably have to nationalize the pharmaceutical companies. Once that happened, we could kiss innovation goodbye. The companies already don't want to research new medicines. Well, new medicines which would actually cure afflictions. Look at the market now. We have thousands upon thousands of drugs which treat symptoms, and each of those have side effects. You then need more drugs to treat the side effects. If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I wouldn't want to create actual cures in this country either. After the billions invested in research, the billions in trials, and finally getting it to market - the government says that my company can only hold the patent for a short period before I have to release the formula to every other company. If my company is lucky, it would get our investment back....... To keep a steady stream of doctors in this system the government would have to create an elite class of doctors.
Thanks for caring....PRAISE JESUS!!! Now I can truly live, Hawk has been so christ-like! Jesus must be so proud of you for juding someone you do not know.
I don't care what you have to say, you make me laugh, I enjoy making you dance. I sometimes wonder how you survive. Somone must be taking care of you, you are clearly to stupid to take care of yourself. When I read your comments I sometimes thank God for what I have and the fact that I can think and string words together that mean something. I would hate to go through life without an original thought. I guess I sort of feel sorry for you.
obviously you do, since you respond to comments Jackass!!
I am actually from Missouri, I have lived in Texas, colorado and now in Kansas. I have traveled the entire United States and I beleive in evolution. I also believe in a creator. Now I would say that you don't count, I say that because noone really gives a shit what you have to say.
Yes but you're from Kansas and don't believe in evoultion, so you clearly don't count.
I am twice as old as you libby, so don't even think about questioning me or my opinions on the issues. Clearly, the fact that I have lived longer makes me much smarter than you. Of course that is not saying much on my behalf, a rock is smarter than you.
Oh and I am worried about things that are said on U4Prez?
Like I said... dont take my word for it, ask around lol
ill be voting in a year libby, thank gawd you think i am wrong, now i am sure i am doing something right :-)
aww thanks Trish and if you think that you're as stupid as him.
Libby, anyone in here will tell you that James can debate 100 circles around you before you can even google up and plagiarise ONE line!!!
James that is all well and good, but know your role, you clearly have no idea what your tlaking about and rightly so, you're only a kid.
And while it is great that you're invloved in the political process, that doesn't give you the intelligence to debate someone who has lived twcie as long as you have. Now stop pissing me off.
oh look some one wants to feel smarter by pressing on the caps lock, excuse libby he has always been kinda slow after his momma backed up over him when he was a youngin'. You think that because i am young that i wouldn't know that my dads business is having troubles , or we are having trouble paying the rent, or i would see the effects of a shitty education system on poor kids from poor areas
Here is what kills me James, first YOU DON'T PAY TAXES, YOU DON'T PAY FOR HEALTHCARE, YOU DON'T PAY RENT, YOU DON'T Drive, yet you debate about issues YOU CLEARLY CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT!!! This is why U4PREZ, should make a place for kids to debate, not having kids debate adults!!!
libby i think its time to go buy a piece , your "slightly receding hairline" is begining to show
Smarter you spell like a lobotomized monkey on thorozine!!
come back when you get smarter stuff to copy and paste from daily kos okay
huh? James did you forget to take your meds?
wooptie doo you learned to copy and paste, awww
Ok let me make this simple for you retard-licans, Health care should be treated as a public utility, not as a private profit center.
Hmmm. US is the richest country in the world. US is only developed country without universal healthcare. hmmmmmm.
Friday t is truly shameful that the United States is the richest country in the world and yet the only developed country in the world withough universal health coverage. We need to fix our broken system!
Why do you want to take away superior healthcare from people who are responsible enough to get insurance?
You keep repeating that Obama won. Bush won as many times as a US president can. Does that make him right? If cost was not an issue and you were seriously ill, would you rather go to a US hospital or a Canadian hospital?
BARAK WON!!! 62 Million Americans voted for for a fundemantal change. American citizens need to be more aware of the problem and our need for universal health care. Many Americans have been scared into thinking that socialized medicine is a bad thing, like socialism or communism in general. However, this is certainly not the case. Canada, for instance, has socialized medicine but their government is quite conservative in other ways. Although many Western European nations have several socialized programs besides medicine, their citizens are quite content. Americans can remain as devoted to capitalism as they want, but is it too much to ask for socialized medicine, which benefits all?
20'000? or $20'000.25 ?
No but you may bleed to death in the ambulace waiting till the doc has a chance to see you within the prescribed time, so tell us. How much is your life worth?
youll be bankrupt for not being sick, with UHC
Yes what, you would go to Canada? Suppose cost wasn't an issue.
Also I wouldn't go bankrupt for getting sick!!
yes, because I wouldn't get a 20,000 bill for an over night stay!
socialize the whole damn country......we will fit right in with the counrys we left 200+ years ago And be just as free
Lib, would you go to Canada for medical treatment if you had the choice between getting treatment there or here?
Eric, The United States needs to use Europe and Canada as a model. For expample, in 1948, the British government decided to grant free health care to all its citizens, stating that if the government can afford to spend money to kill people, it can afford to spend money to help people. We need to do the same. Our government was meant to help its citizens, and our health is one of our most basic needs!! I mean it isn't rocket science!
The problem with the politician deciding is the same problem we had with Blago. Who do you think the politicians would give their healthcare to? If Robert Reich has his way, it won't be any white construction workers. It will be whoever keeps the politicians elected.
Again the Wiz hits the nail on the head. If blue pills were paid for by the indivdiual who wants them, the price would go up, and costs for other health care could go down. But when insurance dollars are used for everything, there are less dollars available.
Health insurance is what it should be. Insurance if you need a major surgery. The insurance industry as it is wasting money for everyone boner pills. There was a time in this country where insurance was affordable. What we can't have is a blank check given to everyone for everything under the sun.
Lib411, the fact that other countries have socialized medicine, doesn't mean they have a better system. It simply means that the bills are paid by a pool of people, as opposed to a single person. But the debate is getting off of focus. As the Wiz has mentioned to fix the problem you must address the issue of scarcity of the resources. Your argument is purely political and offers no solution other than to shift the price burden.
BD Obama ran for 2 years on providing Healthcare to ALL Americans and he was voted in. So that IS the will of the American people.
Second let me also add that it is a CRIME that only in AMerica can someone go bankrupt due to medical bills, that because you get ill, you can lose everything. THAT IS BULLSHIT'!!
address the real issue, for profit healthcare providers and "insurance" companies. Seriously if an italian guy named Jocko offered you insurance nder the same standards of the HMO's, he would be a felon.
lib, the government is bankrupt. and in medicare and medicaid the government sets a price that it will pay for a serice, so it is fixing the price which would make
it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, price fixing.
Socialzed healthcare is price fixing? No asshole' it is taking care of the people of profit!!! Only in America can someone go bankrupt due to medical costs!!
Here is what kills me, if the people of the countries with universal healthcare really hated their system why don't they copy ours? Funny how every industrial nation has universal Health care except America? If our system was so fucking' wonderful, why don't other countries have our system?
Socialzed healthcare is price fixing. which has historically always resulted in shortages. Also, if you want to know abot the quality of care, look at the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid. real world examples of socialized healthcare in this country and the largest outlay in the annual budget.
The Wiz, that is in fact the only solution. The more "doctors" you have, or surgical mechanics, the less the scarcity, and the lower the price.
Is this "THE" Travis?
I'm with ya Eric. My fiance is from Ontario. While universal health care looks like an ok idea on the surface, when in practice there are many flaws. Long waits and down right poor/incompetent service are the norm from many of her stories.
-Travis
I think we need to change the whole doctoral system. I bet that if a person was well trained to perform certain procedures on patients that we can increase the amount and availability of those procedures. I will call these surgical mechanics. Not neccessarily having to go through the rigorous challenge of getting an MD. Why do we not have the engineers working on our cars who engineered the cars. But breaking this system will probably be trying to eat a glass sandwich. If we can get surgeons to focus on certain simple procedures instead of the whole of the body, it wouldn't matter if they knew your arse from your elbow. As long as the arse doctor was working on my arse.
Keep in mind also that there are three hundred million people in the United States. How much additional overhead will be added to the cost if we need to add hundreds of thousands of people (government workers) to "prioritize" the needs of all of us. If you needed a liver transplant how do you know the person deciding doesn't have an old friend who also needs the transplant, you'd be out of luck. But the real problem goes back to my original argument; the man who can afford the transplant still pays for it, he just doesn't get it anymore. You have not changed the scarcity one iota. Also how do you define "basic health care"?
That's just it, they don't do it in other countries. Canadians who can afford to come to the U.S. for certain procedures do so. Everything is rationed, it just depends on who or what is doing the rationing, price and individuals or government.
Of course, heart transplants and other gut transplants would have to be done on a priority basis. In fact that's the way it is already. There are waiting lists based on need. Other things don't need to be rationed. There is enough of a health infrastructure to provide everyone in this country basic health coverage. If they can do it in many other countries why wouldn't we be able to do it, with 25% of the world's GDP?
Icabebe, sorry but you already pay for medicaid, medicare, and veteran's Administration health care through taxes. What we want is a single payer group health insurance that covers everyone. It would be the most cost efficient way to handle health care. The government (I assume you pay taxes) already subsidizes in one way or another 65% of all health care in country. You pay for yours and theirs. With a National Sales Tax to help foot the bill, and mandatory copays, at least the "poor" can help in a small way to pay for some of that coverage, and it would give them a stake in it. I'm sorry, but at this stage of the game, at this stage in our development, clearly everyone should be covered. And not in the helter-skelter hybrid way it is now. It;'s aripoff, it's too much of a burden (17% of our GDP for health care and 48,000,000 are still uninsured!!)
This country can afford to cover everyone, without the health insurance industry skimming 30%.
I see this as being opposite of how the health care system works. The system relies on the supply of sick people in order to get the money. This is why there are hundreds of commercials for medicines being advertised. What would be the point of that if they were not trying to get you to ask your doctor for the treatment. The idea of scarcity is that if you give everyone access to a pool of money, that they will automatically become sick? No that is not true at all. People that are sick will be actually paying for the health care they receive. I don't see how this would be a bad thing. However, I do see that like all government run systems they do not hold down costs. Doctors would order MRIs for broken fingers. There would be an increase in witch doctors.
Arjay and fng. The problem you must address is that of scarcity. Of course a heart transplant is more important than a beach front home, or a coffee from starbucks, but the issue still stands. There are only so many beach front homes to go around, and only so many heart surgeons. When you ration by need, the same person still pays for the surgery, but he may not benefit from his days of hard work and saving.
In nature, everything eventually dies. What I'm reading Arjay, is that somehow we (humans) are somehow above nature. Healthcare is a privilege. When you start seeing it as a "God given right" then you've put yourself above everything else..... People die - it's a fact. One day, I will die. While I'm here, I will do my best to remain healthy. I don't think it's your job to pay for my healthcare. The only rights I have are to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You might argue that life is also healthcare. You'd be wrong. That just means that the government can't take your life (without due process that is)........ NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE has the right to ask me to pay for their healthcare except my children. I don't remember legally adopting 299,999,998 children, so they can fend for themselves.
Right on Arjay.
Setting priorities is the way to allocate health care in this country and the first thing that we can do is cover our own people and ensure that our plan will see to it that American citizens and residents take priority over foreigners.
We could lower the costs per person for health care in this country from the current $8500 per person to $5500 per person per year by going to a National Health Insurance. This would be accomplished by
1) Negotiating prices for medications and setting scheduled payments for procedures and hospitalization
2) Eliminating most of the nearly $500,000,000 in uneccessary procedures, etc.
3) Cutting administrative overhead from the current 31% for typical HMO or other private insurance to somewhere around 12% (the administrative overhead for medicare is 3%)
4) Full press preventative medicine and setting of serious national health guidelines
5) Consolidation of services.
I've calculated that, assuming a $5500 per person per year cost for basic and catastrophic health care coverage, every inhabitant of this country can be covered with a 4% payroll tax + a 4% National Sales Tax, and a 4% corporate EBIDTA tax.
Medicare, and Medicaid and the VA medical system would be scrapped. $20 copays mandatory for all people for doctor visits, $10 copays for meds.
A National Health Insurance is not only perfectly feasible, but makes alot of sense.
Some version of HR 676 would probably work, whereby medicare would be expanded to cover everyone.
I have a true problem with someone comparing beach front property to health care, and I shouldn't have to explain why. One of the more barbarous aspects of American society is the notion that health care is just another commodity, something to buy and sell and think nothing of, when the stone cold reality is, that's people's lives you're talking about.
Probably the best thing we could do right now for small businesses is to lift their burden of providing health care to their employees off their backs and give it to the government. Every other government in the civilized world has figured this out, that is why the Japanese can build and sell Toyotas in America and it become the biggest selling car here, because the Japanese government doesn't overburden their businesses with health care. You want to improve the American economy, from the Mom-and-Pop diner down the street, to General Motors? Relieve them of their burden to provide their workers health care. What's the overhead on MediCare, 2%? What is it for United, 50-60%? Healthcare should be seen as a right, not a commodity, and certainly not a privilege. As to the crack about Denmark, Danes have no idea what it's like to have to go into bankruptcy to pay for medical bills, and in America, 50% of all bankruptcies are caused by exactly that. I guess it all comes back to the notion that money can't buy you everything, and quite honestly, I'd rather have a system where I don't have to choose between my house and my health. I'd rather pay more in taxes if it means getting people the health care they currently can't afford, than to see them living on the streets because their will to live was greater than their ability to pay the rent. Yes, I am willing, Icababe.
Anonymous... What is the cost of this supposed "universal" healthcare? If it is being "doled" out to the poor, then someone has to pay the costs. The average tax rate in Denmark was 67% the last time I checked. Are you willing to part with 67% or more of your income so that you can pay healthcare costs for someone who refuses to contribute to the "greater good"?
The only thing you are correct about is the existence of the scarcity and the rest is the invention of a fictional world that suits your purposes and leads you to your preferred conclusion.
In the real world where universal health care does exist, private medicine also exists. Thus if the rich man is denied treatment by the state, he may pay for it out of his own pocket. The reason he may be denied the care is that in order to address the scarcity, a priority list for such treatments exists. In the real world this list is created by the health system and not politicians. Such an approach is generally accepted as fair by the majority of the populace.
Like all rightys you insist that since it's impossible to dole out heart transplants to all and sundry we really need to forget the idea of affording decent health care and basic procedures to 100% of the population. This is what is called a bait and switch and we all get it now. Sean Hannity has been doing it for years. Could we have a new trick please.
But here is the real news - Universal health care exists now and works. I can assure you that none of my German colleagues have any complaint about the health care they receive.
I figured since you were the one posting the reward, you wouldn't allow yourself to be eligible, but apparently some didn't realize that.
By the way, I'm not eligible for the $1000 best blog prize at the end of March.
|
|
<< Home