Universal Stupidity

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Well,

Hillary announced her health care plan today. It would cost $100 Billion dollars a year. It would require rolling back all the Bush tax cuts and then some. Not to mention we would cut back on defense. And Hillary said she had several "cost cutting" measures for the industry. What good is health care if you are dead?

John Edwards responded that if he becomes president, he will pass executive orders to cancel congressional health care if they do not pass a universal health care bill.

I'm all for helping those that need help, but who else is worried this could be very detrimental to our health care if these people are elected?

[Mark@Sea]

Great Britain and Canada are excellent examples of government run healthcare. It doesn't work. Routine procedures take years, IF you're approved. It is more expensive, much less efficient, and really presents a hazard to the public health.

If we put such a system in place, it is really going to upset a lot of Canadians, who are coming to this country to get the healthcare they need, and can't get from their 'free' healthcare system at home.

Massachusetts has instituted universal healthcare, with universal requirements to purchase medical insurance from approved companies, at state determined rates and levels of coverage. Predictably, it is turning out to be a complete disaster.

As someone once said, if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is free.

Personal prediction - if a socialist is elected, the economy will tank within 3 years, with a huge rise in unemployment, inflation, and all the other joys of super-recession.

[SkWaShDeM]

Edwards always has been a really lousy attorney. No wonder he went into malpractice law... That idea is nothing more than a propaganda response to Hillary's tax raising, money wasting, military destroying health care plan... I don't even think Edwards can legally do that anyway.

Universal Health Care is a very unfortunate, but inevitable event that will probably happen in the next 10 years. Do I like this? No. I think Universal Health Care is a waste of money and that it has a severely negative impact on the level of care people receive. Are the politicians and left-wing nutjobs going to listen to me? Nope. They see votes coming from giving people "free" health care. They see that as a way to raise taxes without getting voted out of office for it.

The motto of Universal Health Care is: "Take a number and have a seat in the waiting room, we'll call you up in about six to ten weeks." There's a reason a lot of Canadians who live near the US border come down here for their health care, even if they do have to pay out of pocket for it.

[Mark@Sea]

This is classic - ripped from the blog "View from the porch"

I want my, I want my, I want my docs for free.

Now look at that Clinton, that's the way you do it

You play the class war on the ol' tv

That ain't campaignin', that's the way you do it

Health care for nothin' and your docs for free

Now that ain't campaignin', that's the way you do it

Lemme tell ya that gal ain't dumb

Maybe look righteous waggin' a finger

Sure to get a vote from some bum.

We gotta worry 'bout Middle East countries

Immigration and trade treaties

We gotta balance the fed'ral budget

And that don't play on soundbite tv.

See the little Clinton with the earrings and the makeup

Yeah buddy that ain't her own dough

Givin' away other people's money

Always makes for a real good show.

We gotta worry 'bout Middle East countries

Immigration and trade treaties

We gotta balance the fed'ral budget

And that don't play on soundbite tv.

I shoulda learned to play th' Class War

I shoulda learned to court them bums

Look at that mama, she gonna promise free insurance

Votes? That's gonna get some.

And she's up there, whats that? Socialist noises?

Bangin' on the wealthy like Noam Chomsky

That ain't campaignin', that's the way you do it

Health care for nothin' and your docs for free.

We gotta worry 'bout Middle East countries

Immigration and trade treaties

We gotta balance the fed'ral budget

And that don't play on soundbite tv.

Now that ain't campaignin', that's the way you do it

You play the class war on the ol' tv

That ain't campaignin', that's the way you do it

Health care for nothin' and your docs for free

Health care for nothin' and docs for free.

[Cannon Fodder]

Ahem, TennCare anybody? Tennessee was a pilot for universal health care and you seen what it done here.

[fury2neon]

Ahem, TennCare anybody? Tennessee was a pilot for universal health care and you seen what it done here.

Yep, it proves if your goal is to run off all the doctors and raise the cost of health care socialist medicine is the way to go.

[Guest GregRN]

I can tell you that doctors and nurses seem to be split on the issue.

Apparently in Great Britain and Canada, coronary bypass surgery (for one example) will not be performed if you will not be able to pay enough taxes to pay off the debt to society, for paying your bill.

Using that logic, the very people who think they will benefit from Universal Health Care are the ones who will be out of luck. Obviously, the system won't begin that way. But like its trial version, TennCare, people will be dropped.

Universal Health Care would help the working class, if it were not for the fact that technology and technique would be frozen in time. Who's going to come up with a new product that won't make money?

[Mark@Sea]

Yeah, no kidding. I have heard that Europe doesn't really develop new pharmaceuticals, because there is no profit incentive... just read about a case in (formerly Great) Britain about a guy with a badly broken ankle who can't get the surgery done because he smokes! And Hillabeast has made reference in the past to people having to make changes to lesson health risks, as well as cutting some costs in the healthcare system (by not offering service to high risk / non-compliant / low return or elderly patients?)

I'd bet you the docs and nurses who think socialized medicine are a good idea are NOT the high-end performers.

The comparison to the VA health system has been made - don't even go there. It was the shock of my life when I went to the VA hospital within a couple of years of retiring from the Navy, and I was told they couldn't provide the service I needed because it wasn't a service connected disability, and I had a job.

Gee, I knew I shoulda turned in the disability package.

One of these days, a great number of people are going to come to the realization that the demsocialists are actually some of the most anti-American-ideals people on the planet.

[Cannon Fodder]

One of these days, a great number of people are going to come to the realization that the demsocialists are actually some of the most anti-American people on the planet.

There fixed it.

[Guest Phantom6]

"Hillarycare 9.0" sucks! It is the first step to "Universal Healthcare".

Historically she does well with under educated female voters and this is just the type of person that she is targeting with her latest Hillarycare variant. The demsocialists will sucker them in with "FREE for ALL" and then dump them on the doorstep of the funeral home when they can't con the public into caughing up the taxes to continue to pay for it.

IMHO if this country elects this witch she could very well be the last American president.

[Mark@Sea]

hey Greg,

You're a medical professional, got any cure for socialism

[Mark@Sea]

No, Phantom, I promise she won't be the last president - although she may be the first czar.

[Guest Len]

Why would universal care freeze technology and technique? Would not medical research continue?

if it were not for the fact that technology and technique would be frozen in time.

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

TennCare is a ridiculous program and, in my experience, may be run by some of the most incompetent people possible. A few years ago the Docs were complaining because it was costing them approximately $30 to see a patient while TennCare was paying only $28 per visit. TennCare's response was to make up the difference in volume Dont know about you, but the last thing I want when I am sick is a doctor rushing me out of their office. Many private physicians have stopped accepting TennCare altogether, and you cant really blame them.

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

Why would universal care freeze technology and technique? Would not medical research continue?

If the government wont pay for newer better drugs (read: non-generics) when the old ones work, the pharmaceuticals companies cant make a profit on new drugs before the patent expires and the pharmaceuticals companies stop paying for research because there is no profit in it.

Hospitals would get less money from public healthcare, which in turn means less profits, which in turn prevents them from having the funding to purchase new technology (unless you assume that the Government is going to start giving out grants for new equipment).

You cut out the profits that the hospitals and pharmaceuticals companies, the two biggest sources of research funding, are seeing and research is going to plummet.

[SkWaShDeM]

Even if the government starts handing out grants to buy new equipment, it won't go to the hospitals that need it most, it will go to the big facilities that have the best request for funding written up. University Medicals and the like will get the new stuff, while smaller places like Takoma Regional Hospital down in Greeneville, won't get anything.

It's nothing but an emotionally based plea to the less educated voting public. And I got bored in class last night and went looking on campaign websites. Every candidate on both sides seems to use the same template for their site. And every democrat candidate has the same general plan to overhaul health care and provide free coverage for everyone. The box and what's inside are the same, it's just the shiny wrapping paper that changes from candidate to candidate.

[Guest Len]

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree.

I understand the basic economics in play here, but would not big pharma instead focus R&D money on new areas currently served by few, no, or ineffective drugs? (In other words, go where there are no generics or there is a need/market?) And of course basic medical research conducted by academe and funded by NIH and private sources would continue. Yes, it is clear that the capitalist model of big pharma has benefited drug research and access, but I don't see why that would necessarily go away in a universal access system. Profit is still profit, regardless of who's paying.

As for hospitals, for-profit hospitals have an economic interest in keeping current with technique and technology (to attract the best docs, med students, patients with money, etc) regardless of the nature of the insurance system.

Also, remember, the current Dem template for healthcare is not really socialized medicine, but rather guaranteed access to the private payer/insurance system. Universal care does not equal socialized med.

Finally, is there not an economic incentive for more people to have access to health care? I think there are several:

1) Less dependence on very expensive and inefficient emergency room care by the uninsured. (Many hospitals lose the most money in the ER due to the inability of th euninsured to pay. Minor illnesses treated in the ER strain resources needed for true emergencies.)

2) More preventative care = less overall illness, less severe (ie cheaper to treat) illness, lower risk of pandemic outbreaks.

3) The more people in the system, the more the economic burden is spread out among the population.

4) Behavior-change incentives (as suggested by Gov. Bredesen) have health and economic benefits. (We insure you if you stop smoking and eat less trans fat.) Such behavior modifications reduce costs and increase overall health of the population.

5) Healthier population is more economically productive, increasing efficiency and GDP, reducing sick time, etc.

Its clear the European model of health care has its major flaws, as does ours. We have overall better care, but millions without access. They have 100% access, but overall worse care. It seems both systems need work, and the best solution might lie in between the two extremes of the private payer (US) and single payer (EU/Canada) systems.

To me, its a bad situation when over 40 million people don't have health insurance, most because they can't afford it or don't have access to it. We don't need socialized medicine, but we have to do something. The status quo is not cutting it.

If the government wont pay for newer better drugs (read: non-generics) when the old ones work, the pharmaceuticals companies cant make a profit on new drugs before the patent expires and the pharmaceuticals companies stop paying for research because there is no profit in it.

Hospitals would get less money from public healthcare, which in turn means less profits, which in turn prevents them from having the funding to purchase new technology (unless you assume that the Government is going to start giving out grants for new equipment).

You cut out the profits that the hospitals and pharmaceuticals companies, the two biggest sources of research funding, are seeing and research is going to plummet.

[GhostDog]

You are thinking logically which unfortunately has nothing to do with how real people act. Many people on TennCare treat the ER as their family doctor. If you don't have to pay, you don't care.

If there's no hope of profit, no one will do it. Remember the shortage of flu shots a couple of years ago?

You surely don't want to open the door for the gov't to start telling you how to live "for your own good", do you? If that day ever comes, you can kiss your guns and your freedom goodbye. Don't assume that all of the people in gov't have the same good intentions that you do.

It's kind of like communism: it might look good on paper (to some people) but it will never work in the real world. People just don't live like logical computers (thank goodness). Besides, this "socialized medicine" will be exactly like communism where "everyone is equal" but some people are just more "equal" than others. You know who I'm talking about; the same people who want to tell you how to live but think the rules don't apply to them.

Also, you would be limiting your own options. Even if you could afford to pay for care (for example, if you were turned down or had to wait for treatment), where could you go to get it, Canada?

It's a bad idea all the way around. Look how well the gov't runs everything else that's within their control. Do you really want that kind of efficiency in you health care?

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

To me, its a bad situation when over 40 million people don't have health insurance, most because they can't afford it or don't have access to it. We don't need socialized medicine, but we have to do something. The status quo is not cutting it.

It basically comes down to the fact that I dont want to pay (indirectly) for someone else to have something that I have to work for. If they can't afford it, I fail to see how it becomes my responsibility.

I don't see getting health insurance as an insurmountable challenge. I have worked several jobs that did not provide health care...so I went out and got a policy on my own. I fail to see how someone cant have access to health care?

Edit: I would be in full support of a program to provide medical insurance for children until they hit the age of 18 or until they finish their education.

[SkWaShDeM]

As for hospitals, for-profit hospitals have an economic interest in keeping current with technique and technology (to attract the best docs, med students, patients with money, etc) regardless of the nature of the insurance system.

Here's the problem, if everyone is given the same coverage, for-profit hospitals don't get paid any more than non-profits or not-for-profits will. Charges will be the same, reimbursement will be the same. Hospitals won't make any money, and won't be able to get new equipment because they simply can't get the capital.

Also, remember, the current Dem template for healthcare is not really socialized medicine, but rather guaranteed access to the private payer/insurance system. Universal care does not equal socialized med.

They say they're going to guarantee access by making up the cost difference in government subsidies, creating a universal plan, and requiring insurance companies to cover you if you pay the premium, irregardless of pre-existing conditions or age. How is that not socialized medicine? We're paying more in taxes so that everyone can have the same health care.

Finally, is there not an economic incentive for more people to have access to health care? I think there are several:

1) Less dependence on very expensive and inefficient emergency room care by the uninsured. (Many hospitals lose the most money in the ER due to the inability of th euninsured to pay. Minor illnesses treated in the ER strain resources needed for true emergencies.)

2) More preventative care = less overall illness, less severe (ie cheaper to treat) illness, lower risk of pandemic outbreaks.

3) The more people in the system, the more the economic burden is spread out among the population.

4) Behavior-change incentives (as suggested by Gov. Bredesen) have health and economic benefits. (We insure you if you stop smoking and eat less trans fat.) Such behavior modifications reduce costs and increase overall health of the population.

5) Healthier population is more economically productive, increasing efficiency and GDP, reducing sick time, etc.

The uninsured aren't the problem when it comes to ER volume. TennCare/Medicaid patients on the other hand, are. So are frivolous lawsuits. Those with no insurance will either pay you in cash, or not pay at all and add additional costs in collection fees later. TennCare/Medicaid will pay you whatever the set rate is. Usually, about 20% less than what it really costs you to provide the service. So the hospital loses money.

Preventative care is a great idea. Try educating the masses on that concept beyond childhood vaccinations, flu shots, and condoms as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Universal Health Care will just increase the burden all of us that already pay for health care have to pay. Financially, time, and in lost longevity due to lack of innovation afterwards. Pharmaceutical companies will stop developing new drugs as often because they will simply not make any money on them. Where's the incentive when there's no profit?

One of the key principles behinds all the candidates health care plans is universal coverage. No disqualifications for pre-existing conditions. Saying we won't cover you unless you stop smoking would be a big no-no under these plans. Largely because, according to these political types, everyone should have health care. And denying smokers the right to free or cheap health insurance is bad. They vote too. And the Tobacco industry would hate to lose all their customers because they quit smoking just so the government would give them their free health insurance. They might stop giving us campaign money... Then we can't run the country from a former malarial swampland.

Point 5 is true in all respects, and would be great, if there was a feasible way to bring that about even further than we already have. When was the last time you saw somebody come down with a case of the measles? Or cholera? Or Polio?

Its clear the European model of health care has its major flaws, as does ours. We have overall better care, but millions without access. They have 100% access, but overall worse care. It seems both systems need work, and the best solution might lie in between the two extremes of the private payer (US) and single payer (EU/Canada) systems.

To me, its a bad situation when over 40 million people don't have health insurance, most because they can't afford it or don't have access to it. We don't need socialized medicine, but we have to do something. The status quo is not cutting it.

The 49 million Americans without insurance statistic is flawed. Cut that number in half and you're probably closer to the truth. The statistics used by proponents of Universal Health Care and Socialized Medicine are bloated and incorrectly reported. Any single person who goes without health insurance for one day out of the year is considered to be uninsured for the purposes of that statistical study. More conservative numbers, which count only those who go without insurance for more than 6-9 months out of the year put the number closer to 20-25 million, including illegal immigrants. I saw one study that put the number at around 12 million, not including illegal immigrants.

[Mark@Sea]

Hey, without specifically saying something impolite, I've got a behaviour modification suggestion for anyone willing to force me to do something for my own good...

Ever heard the little Johnny joke where little Johnny is sitting on a park bench smoking a cigarette? A man comes up, sits down and starts getting on his case, telling little Johnny that he will die young, etc.

Little Johnny tells the man that his grandfather lived to be 98. The man said that surely his grandfather didn't smoke. Little Johnny replies "No, he minded his own effing business."

Socialists. You can't live (free) with them... and come to think of it, I'm perfectly willing to live without them.

The concept here is pretty simple. Pharma companies don't want to invest money in something that will have an extremely limited return, or that will have a negative return. They are in business to make money, after all. Otherwise they might as well be a plumbing supply.

Doctors and hospitals don't want to lose money at gunpoint, being forced to treat patients below cost. You don't want to see a surgeon fixing your sink, right? Why wouldn't he, if he could make more money doing that?

I don't want to be forced at gunpoint to give more of the money I've worked hard for to the government, so they in turn can give it to someone else.

By what right do you propose to do these things? The common good? Those words have been used to justify more evil in this world than any others I can think of.

So you have no moral right to take my money, or force people/companies to work. The universal healthcare system, in all its' varied forms, hasn't worked anywhere on the planet (lets' call that a 'clue', shall we?). You're gonna do it anyway because you're unhappy with the current system? Because it is an expedient way to get votes?

Tell you what - go buy health insurance for someone who doesn't have any. Get all your liberal friends to do the same thing. Then the peepul have healthcare, which will make you happy. I will still have at least some of my income, and a choice about how to live my life and provide for my own needs (about which, I believe I am more qualified to decide than anyone else) and I'm happy*. The Docs and hospitals will actually have an economic reason to continue providing the service which the rest of the world acknowledges is the very best available, the pharma companies will continue to have an economic reason to research and develop newer, better drugs. Sounds like a win-win all around, so how about it? Put your money where your mouth is, and leave mine out of it.

* By happy, I mean I won't be down at the bridge sniping at redcoats

Question - how does the concept of profit through volume, which works well in an assembly line type of environment, translate to a field like medicine, where each patients' needs will change on a literally case-by-case basis?

[fury2neon]

Why would universal care freeze technology and technique? Would not medical research continue?

It has frozen or slowed drastically in all socialist economies. It's a matter reality interfering with the liberal really wishing reality would get out of the way.

Thanks to our government interference in health care our cost are higher and our quality of care is falling off. When you could just pay for your own care rather than fight the government back insurance companies you could actually get the care you needed rather than just what the insurance will pay for.

[Mark@Sea]

Hey, all, I apologize for the rant.

I think from now on, when faced with a suggestion like this, I'll simply reply "Hey, get your hand outta my pocket!. What are you, some kinda perv?"

[Guest Len]

The concept here is pretty simple. Pharma companies don't want to invest money in something that will have an extremely limited return, or that will have a negative return. They are in business to make money, after all. Otherwise they might as well be a plumbing supply.

No one here has shown me that this would change under a system where everyone was guaranteed access. There is still the profit motive to develop new drugs to help deal with an aging population. Under the right universal access plan, I would think big pharma would be all over thisd idea. More people who can access their drugs. Volume works in the drug biz, if not in direct medical care.

Also, to be clear. I do NOT advocate socialized (govt run, govt provided medical care). I DO advocate universal access to the current system. If you want it, here is a policy. (More the Obama plan than the Clinton plan, which is more of mandate. I don't like mandates.)

Folks this is EXACTLY the kind of thing government SHOULD be doing. Governments are formed to do what individuals and private organizations can't or won't do. Clearly health care falls within that category.

[Mark@Sea]

Governments are formed to do what individuals and private organizations can't or won't do. Clearly health care falls within that category.

Rephrase that to say what it will really mean - forced income redistribution to support a lower quality of available healthcare. That is demonstrably the sort of thing the Euro's do, but then again, I don't want to live in Europe.

We have the sterling example of forced income redistribution to provide a better quality of life, and friend, if you were to point to ONE THING in this country that has really saddled the black man with a terrible burden, it is the unintended consequences of the welfare system on his family values.

Thats the sort of thing I don't want my government to do, and if a private individual attempts such a thing, he is liable to get shot.

The federal government was formed to do two things - provide for the common defense, and keep the individual states from interfering with each other. (Thats' in the manual, I think ).

There is a semi-famous speech given by an early Tennessean on the subject of the government giving money to the poor & needy, are you not familiar with it?