"...I don't want to scrap what you might call big government. I distrust big business more than big government. But often enough the two entities have been bedfellows with silk sheets and matching toothbrushes..." --Dar Williams, Contributor/Commentator, The Huffington Post
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dar-williams/an-open-invitation-to-the_b_786277.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=238881,b=facebook
Posts
Cartoon: Stage 5
12 minutes ago
22 comments:
If you would study the founders of our country, their view would've been the opposite.
They distrusted human nature in all circumstances, knowing it to be flawed and self serving.
But they mistrusted government more than any private association (such as a business) because they understood that when working with humans in any voluntary capacity (such as a business transaction) you have the option to end the relationship.
But government is to be mistrusted more because (short of a revolution) you have no choice but to obey. Thus they built a federal government of very limited powers and reserved the rest 'to the states and to the people'.
Once you turn over a task (such as health care) to the government and they become the only game in town, then you've lost any opportunity for other options.
But the Founding Fathers didn't know of or have to deal with what has been created in the meantime and that is, the corporation, with its existence as though it's a person.
Government is the only thing between us and the corporations getting their way in all matters. Without the government, there are no "brakes" on their actions.
You should see the PBS special that studied other health care systems across the world. Britain and Europe and the Scaninavian countries turned over health care to the government but only as a way to keep costs down. Their businesses in health care--their hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, etc.--all work just fine and with nice profits. Just not with the unbridled, obscene ones our system allows. Government, in this way, is only, again, the "brakes" to the system, not "the only game in town."
In a single payer system, the government is the only game in town and doctors become de facto employees of the government because their entire paycheck comes from government.
They would be 'in private practice' in name only. The reality is they would be employees of the government.
If I'm really sick and need an expensive treatment, I don't want the government there 'putting on the brakes' thank you very much.
I'm much less concerned with cost and much more concerned with getting well. I already know how to die cheaply, thank you.
It's as I said, you need to see the documentary/study PBS did on this. Businesses still operate and government is not "the only game in town", by any stretch of the imagination. There's plenty of choice and the governments don't own or run the health care system--the hospitals, etc. You can let that canard go.
The government doesn't "put the brakes on" in the universal health care countries, in spite of what you believe and have been lead to believe.
See the special. I'm sure it's online. It's very helpful and informative. The health care staffs are not employees of the government. It's just that the government doesn't allow the obscene price increases we aren't smart enough to put the end to here in the States.
I doubt you'll see the show and I doubt further you'll believe this but I wish you would. You'd see it's true.
It really does work over most of the rest of the entire world.
It's mind-numbingly stupid that we support our health care system and allow ourselves to get fiscally/financially raped by these companies the way we do.
If 100% of your income comes from the government, you are a de facto employee of the government.
What part of that do you not get?
In a single payer system, all costs and payments flow thru the government. They can call it 'private practice' if they want, but it's for those who believe labels only.
Joe,
The government doesn't own these hospitals or organizations.
The government doesn't cut these people's checks.
What part of that do you not get?
The form I'm talking about--that I saw on the PBS coverage--doesn't have or require the government to be the payer.
Let's kill the "what part of that do you not get" thing.
Mo Rage wrote:
"The government doesn't cut these people's checks."
Just who or what do you think is the 'payer' in a 'single payer' (or as some have dubbed it 'Medicare for All') system?
That is one way it can be done, Joe, yes, fine.
The "public option" plan I've mentioned would only create an insurance source to give the existing, private companies competition.
The other reference I made was to the British system, which only limits the amount of increases companies can make.
Let's say you worked for a grocery store.
Should the government be allowed to set up a chain of grocery stores using tax money and go into competition with your employer? Do you think that is authorized by the Constitution?
What do you think would be the result for your employer if the government opened up a chain of stores and offered artificially low prices in competition with your store?
Do you think the rest of the country should be under the financial obligation to underwrite part of the price of the groceries that are purchaed at the government owned grocery store chain?
What if the government believed that the best way to continue it's Food Care Reform was to also buy up farms that produced the food and processing companies which prepared the food (example : they bought Kellogg and produced their own brand of cereal, they bought Del Monte and produced their own brand of canned fruits and vegetables, etc)?
So then the government farms, underwritten by tax dollars, would produce food at an artificially low price, in competition with family owned farms. And they would process food, underwritten by tax dollars, at an artificially low price in competition with companies like General Mills and Green Giant.
Do you think the Constitution authorizes the government to go into business against private individuals and use the federal purse to drive prices down, and likely drive private companies into bankruptcy?
How bout if we try it another way.
How bout if rich Democrats like John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Alan Grayson, George Soros, the Kennedys, the Hollywood elite, etc all pooled some of their OWN money and bought a couple of health insurance companies?
Then they could simply slash the rates and let anyone enroll at any time (they could enroll with a pre-existing condition, thus eliminating the need to pay for insurance before they were sick).
Let Democrats use their OWN money and 'show us how it should be done'.
Instead of demonizing insurance companies, I challenge Democrats to lead by example and put their money where their mouth is.
What do you think?
Why, it'd be a wildly successful company , don't you think? They could show us all how the insurance business SHOULD be by slashing rates and enrolling whosoever will.
Why don't millionaire Democrats (and there are a lot of them) do that? Can you tell me what you think would happen if they did the very thing that they preach to others?
If all of the grocery store chains were colluding, so they could keep raising their prices so that, eventually, more than 50 million Americans couldn't afford groceries, as is the case with health care insurance, yes, Joe, I think it would not only be fair but I think it would make a great deal of self-protective sense. And that is, in effect, the case with health insurance and health care in the US today.
Most medium and large companies don't even buy health insurance from a health insurance company.
They 'self insure'.
So to say that 'big insurance companies' are in collusion to raise prices is simply false.
In a self insure scenario, the employer collects the premium, the employer pays the claims and the employer pockets the difference.
You do understand that most American workers don't have an insurance contract purchased from an insurance company, don't you?
------------------------
So, you want a 'public option' to give the insurance companies some competition, eh?
How come rich Democrats don't buy a couple of insurance companies, slash the rates, and provide competition?
I'll tell you why.
They'd go broke.
That is the real purpose of the 'public option', isnt it?
Isnt the real purpose to drive insurance companies into bankruptcy so that the government is the only game left in town?
Admit the truth, Mo.
That is what Democrats want, right?
In the first place, that would take millions and millions, if not billions, likely, of dollars to accomplish.
Secondly, then you'd have to run the beast, which would be a full-time job, as we all know.
It's not that simple or simplistic, by a long shot.
There are lots of rich Democrats.
Al Gore is worth at least $100 million. He has made a killing in Google stock options.
Oprah, a big D, makes over $250 million every year.
George Soros is worth $1 billion plus.
the list of rich Democrats, including members of Congress, is long. John Kerry, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller, big mouth Alan Grayson, Claire McCaskill.....
They could do it if they really believed there was a problem. But they don't do it. Why not?
If they are comfortable preaching to insurance companies about how 'evil' they are and how they 'should' do it, why don't they lead by example?
Don't you think if an insurance company could slash rates and draw in new customers to increase their bottom line that they'd already be doing it?
The reason insurance costs a lot is because that's how much it costs to provide you the service.
I dont like that it's expensive, believe me. My income is 'below the line' most years, and I buy insurance every year for my family. So dont tell me it can't be done. But you have to make choices in life. Cable TV and Chiefs tickets -- or insurance? New car with big payment every couple of years -- or insurance? New house in a fancier neighborhood -- or insurance? Go to the movies and drink a 12 pack every weekend -- or insurance? Everyone in the family needs a cell phone -- or insurance? Buy new clothes at expensive stores in the mall every few months -- or insurance? Go to Branson and Disneyland -- or insurance?
"And then they'd have to run it." Well, yes they'd need to know something about how the insurance business works ......
....and maybe that is the problem. They are busy passing laws to destroy an industry that they really don't understand.
And you accuse me of naivete'. Holy cow. You hit the motherlode. And I'm not mocking you here.
George Soros could, if he wanted, buy an insurance company but it really would take billions of dollars and then, yes, not to be dismissed is the fact that you have to run the bloody thing. That's no small task, by any stretch of imagination.
They're not "busy passing laws to destroy an industry that they really don't understand." That's beyond silly. That's ridiculous to the point of absurd. You and I both know plenty of Democrats get plenty of these people's lobbyist's money. They aren't out to "destroy an industry." Usually you say things that are have some truth and legitimacy to them. This isn't one of them.
Finally, you can afford health insurance. Terrific. Good for you. Keep it up.
50+ million Americans are not un-affording health care insurance because they are all simply buying or paying for "Cable TV and Chiefs tickets...a new car with big payment every couple of years...a new house in a fancier neighborhood...Going to the movies and drink a 12 pack every weekend...Everyone in the family needs a cell phone...Buying new clothes at expensive stores in the mall every few months... Branson and Disneyland."
The facts are--and you ignore--we have the most expensive health care system in the world, literally, and it doesn't work. Too many of us don't have insurance because it's that expensive and too many of us don't get the care we need, for the same reason and we have the 37th worst mortality rate in the world, all because it's too expensive and the corporations have priced it out of our reach.
And next year it will be higher.
Deny that at your pleasure. Just don't ask that I agree with your conclusion.
I see you've gone back to your tried and untrue riffs.
We've already established that the mortality rate isnt simply due to the fact that the US is a capitalist country. It's much more a reflection of what we eat and what we do or dont do (exercise) and the poisons to which we are addicted and a lot of other factors.
Why don't you get specific with mortality rates? Let's compare, say, the mortality of cancer patients in various countries? Where can you expect to live longer after being diagnosed with cancer? Where can you expect to get treatment or surgery the quickest? These mortality stats would say a lot more than a broad mortality stat devoid of context, such as what you've offered.
And cost. You want both the best care and the lowest cost. You need to recognize that you probably won't get both at the same time.
I'd rather have higher cost and better quality, and I'm not gonna believe the Obama propaganda that you can provide insurance for 50 million additional people and spend less at the same time. You might believe it, but you might believe in Santa Claus too.
Why dont you look at the Census numbers before you declare that '50 million Americans dont have insurance because they cant afford it'. It's not true.
Of the 50 million:
--9.9 million arent even US citizens
--10.5 million make $75,000 or more
--9.3 million make $50,000 or more (I buy insurance every year on a lot less)
--15.4 million make less than $25,000 and many of them probably ALREADY QUALIFY for Medicaid
--8.9 million are 18-24 years old, an age group notorious for not buying insurance because they dont think they need to 'waste the money' because they are still young and healthy
--11.9 million are 25-34 years old, and this age group also has many that voluntarily forego insurance because they are healthy (though probably not in as high of a percentage as the previous group, but still a lot of people)
www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
When Democrats come up with an honest number of those truly in need, then we'll have a conversation.
In the words of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."
I say some things--you conclude completely different things.
I have never once--in my entire life, let alone here--said I want "the best care and the lowest cost."
What I have continually said, because it's true and because it works across the rest of the world, is universal health care. It's both far less expensive and the results for the entire populations of the countries that have universal health care are far better, both. It's undeniable. It's statistically true and proven.
International comparisons:
This is the Frontline video I mentioned earlier you should see. T.R. Reid literally went around the world, studying different health care systems and their benefits and drawbacks and compared them to the US' system:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1050712790/
This is an excellent breakdown by chart of health care costs by country:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/healthreform/july-dec09/chart_08-18.html
Others:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/insider/health/july-dec09/systems_1013.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
Heart and cancer survival rates in developed world
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234276/Britain-sick-man-Europe-Heart-cancer-survival-rates-worst-developed-world.html#ixzz170OiuX9x
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
Three statistics:
1) The US has the most expensive health care system in the world;
2) The US ranks 37th, overall, in mortality rates, compared to the rest of the world;
3) More than 50 million Americans have no health care insurance at all and so, virtually no health care coverage at all.
Those are the over-riding facts.
All else is nit-picking.
Facts used out of context are falsehoods.
The amount of spending is fine with me if it buys quality care, and it does as shown by the comparisons I posted regarding survival rates, which you ignore.
You refuse to discuss mortality in any intelligent way. Your argument is a mile wide and a half an inch deep.
You continue to use the '50 million' figure as if it had some meaning, but you refuse to discuss WHO the 50 million are and WHY they are uninsured. I posted the Census breakdown and discussed it and you simply cover your ears la la la la la la la la.
It's really too bad that you are averse to any intelligent discussion of the issue.
I had hoped you weren't just another brainwashed Democrat. oh well
Our--the US--mortality rate, overall, is what it is. I refuse to fragment it in order to prove your point or anyone else's because the fact is, we die sooner, in the US, than 36 other countries, overall. Fragmenting it, so you can show that some splinters of us, in smaller groups, might live longer, really is meaningless and irrelevant and, in fact, not truthful.
You're right--I refuse to ignore that more than 50 million Americans have health care insurance and so, health care. It's obviously irrelevant to you but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant--to them, to me or overall, in reality.
I always hope I'm not discussing anything with a brainwashed person of whatever stripe. Apparently that's not the case here. You want to put on some rose-colored glasses and pretend we live in a pretty world where everyone in America has access to health care and it's affordable and not rationed. That's just not the case, as the facts show.
P.S. That "Frontline" show, comparing our health care system to other countries, by T.R. Reid is only 56 minutes long.
Post a Comment