A lot of people are for healthcare reform...

[Cerebreus]

...but how it should be reformed is up for debate.

Just reminding folks just what is the problem. I'm tired of Obama and the Democrats saying the Republicans are not for reform. Granted, some may be, but many are.

One of the biggest concerns is a public option. My concerns is that we will end up with a single-payer system, and I have two reasons why:

1. Several prominent democrats are for a single payer system, including the president. I'm not sure they'll do enough to prevent a public option from being the only option. If Obama was willing to seek cap and trade when he believed electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket" if it passed, then I'm worried.

Some of you may think that is right-wing propaganda, but...

2. Several supporters of a single-payer system say a public option is the best way to obtain it, including Barney Frank. If some supporters and some opponents of a single-payer believe this, then that is worrisome for me.

Government should regulate industries to keep them in check, but I worry about who will keep government in check if it has the power. So far, both recent administrations haven't abused their power to the extreme that could be done (see elections in Zimbabwe for an example), but there may be one where they abuse the power given to them with good intentions.

Those are my main concerns. Say what you will, but these things will probably continue to bother me.

EDIT: Going to include links. Hold on...

EDIT 2:
Obama and his support for the single-payer system:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/

Obama and electricity rates:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/11/mike-pence/pence-claims-obama-said-energy-costs-will-skyrocke/

Barney Frank and the road to a single-payer system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

 

[Skutch]

It'd help if you also explained what you find objectionable about the hypothetical single-payer system.

 

[Cerebreus]

It'd help if you also explained what you find objectionable about the hypothetical single-payer system.

My concern is the potential for abuse.

Railroad companies used to take advantage of farmers by charging anything they want and got away with it for awhile because they were only source for transporting goods.

If government is the only provider of something, then they, in a way, have the right to charge or demand whatever they want for that good or services.

The possible abuse is what worries me.

 

[Skutch]

It'd help if you also explained what you find objectionable about the hypothetical single-payer system.

My concern is the potential for abuse.

Railroad companies used to take advantage of farmers by charging anything they want and got away with it for awhile because they were only source for transporting goods.

If government is the only provider of something, then they, in a way, have the right to charge or demand whatever they want for that good or services.

The possible abuse is what worries me.

As opposed to the current system of abuse perpetrated by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies? You're okay with getting screwed over, just so long as it's a corporation and not the government doing the screwing?
The railroad companies analogy would be a bit more apt if you compared them to the existing system. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what people find so objectionable about the single payer system.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

It'd help if you also explained what you find objectionable about the hypothetical single-payer system.

My concern is the potential for abuse.

Railroad companies used to take advantage of farmers by charging anything they want and got away with it for awhile because they were only source for transporting goods.

If government is the only provider of something, then they, in a way, have the right to charge or demand whatever they want for that good or services.

The possible abuse is what worries me.

As opposed to the current system of abuse perpetrated by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies? You're okay with getting screwed over, just so long as it's a corporation and not the government doing the screwing?
The railroad companies analogy would be a bit more apt if you compared them to the existing system. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what people find so objectionable about the single payer system.

Its economics, the government would have a monopoly, which leads to dimished quality and higher prices. Look at our hat.

While, if they are plenty of choices for the consumer the business must keep trying to raise quality and lower prices to one up each other.

 

[Skutch]

Its economics, the government would have a monopoly, which leads to dimished quality and higher prices. Look at our hat.

While, if they are plenty of choices for the consumer the business must keep trying to raise quality and lower prices to one up each other.

Our... hat?
I get how the free market is supposed to work. And to a certain extent it does when you're talking about things like retail goods. But once an industry realizes that they are the sole providers of a service, they inevitably do everything they can to exploit their positions.
I KNOW the corporations are going to do everything they can to maximize their profits, and for insurance companies that means charging more and providing less care, and for drug companies it means charging hundreds of times the manufacturing cost of their products.
I'd rather place my faith in the hopefully benevolent hands of the government, which already provides a number of fine and necessary tax-payer funded services such as firefighters (which used to be done by private companies which would exploit people and watch your house burn down with you in it if you couldn't afford or refused to pay their fee), law enforcement, and the military.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

The way I see it is as follows...

A Corporations goal is to make money for it's share holders,

A Governments goal is to stay in power BUT since the US has Term Limits (the best part of the American Political System in my mind) the government SHOULD be more concerned about legacy, reputation and the future of their political party.

By this logic you have FAR more reason to trust the government than The Corporations. At least you have a built in system for getting rid of and changing the rules when it comes to The Government, as opposed to corporations, which seem to make their own rules.

 

[electric_warrior]

i just find it hilarious that the american right has suddenly launched a massive offensive... against the british NHS!! fuckin' ignorant twats, i actually heard one woman say, "we don't want no NHS, we're america not Russia!!" i could almost hear the hicks from south park shouting "rabble, rabble" behind her.

i may not be familiar with the particular issues of american healthcare, but my mum's friend works for the red cross or medicine's sans frontieres or something, and one of the places they go most frequently is america and they get miles of lines of people without insurance waiting for medical attention. more than in africa or the developing world, so something needs to be done.

but again, being british i'm not aware of the particulars

 

[Skutch]

Also keep in mind that even if we switched to a single-payer system, hospitals and drug companies would still be privately owned.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In the UK, we do not have a monopoly. If you're dissatisfied with the NHS (though why the fuck you would be is beyond me), you can go private. So the single-payer system just went out of the window. Secondly, by introducing the state as a baseline, you are, in effect, guaranteeing competition within healthcare, due to the different motives of state and private entities.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Health Care reform is nonsense. If they honestly cared about people they'd lower our taxes (we roughly pay 40% of our income to the government) and stop funding useless pork-barrel nonsense.

Want to fix Health Care? Start people up on HSA's where they get covered for every major ailment and have to shop around on a budget for unnecessary procedures like check ups. Then at the end of the year whatever money they didn't spend they get to keep.

Start year with $2000 in 'unnecessary procedure' account. Spend $700 that year. Get $1300 directly to you at end of year, company puts another $2000 in your account.

There, promotes competition which leads to lower prices and better care.

 

[Cliff_m85]

The way I see it is as follows...

A Corporations goal is to make money for it's share holders,

A Governments goal is to stay in power BUT since the US has Term Limits (the best part of the American Political System in my mind) the government SHOULD be more concerned about legacy, reputation and the future of their political party.

By this logic you have FAR more reason to trust the government than The Corporations. At least you have a built in system for getting rid of and changing the rules when it comes to The Government, as opposed to corporations, which seem to make their own rules.

No, no, NO! That is completely senseless logic. A Corporation gives you a choice to buy their items, you are not forced. As such, they must work WITH you to entice you enough to buy the product. Since multiple corporations sell the same product, they are effectively fighting for your attention through a competing market which means they will have to either provide a superior product or a cheaper product.

The government FORCES you to pay for their product (taxes) even if you don't want to (say, public Schools if you have a child in private schools). If they make the situation worse, they just TAKE more of your money to 'fix' it. There's no competition so they don't really give a damn, what there really is is a mafia type system. You pay or you go to jail, so why should you care about getting your moneys worth?


With this logic, you have FAR more reason to trust a corporation. Atleast you can CHOOSE what you want with a corporation and punish them for not following rules buy not giving them money. You can't do that with the government, which seem to make their own rules.

 

[Cerebreus]

It'd help if you also explained what you find objectionable about the hypothetical single-payer system.

My concern is the potential for abuse.

Railroad companies used to take advantage of farmers by charging anything they want and got away with it for awhile because they were only source for transporting goods.

If government is the only provider of something, then they, in a way, have the right to charge or demand whatever they want for that good or services.

The possible abuse is what worries me.

As opposed to the current system of abuse perpetrated by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies? You're okay with getting screwed over, just so long as it's a corporation and not the government doing the screwing?
The railroad companies analogy would be a bit more apt if you compared them to the existing system. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what people find so objectionable about the single payer system.

Please don't accuse me of that. I just said I was for regulating things. I don't want either to have the power.

Here's my objection to the single payer system: The railroad example I gave? How do I know that won't happen under the government? They would have the right to do anything they want since they are the provider.

As for changing the laws, I look at the elections in Iran and Zimbabwe and see that as a possibility of happening here.

America was founded on the principle of small government because of the fear of abuse and the encouragement of freedom.

I just worry that once government will have the power, they will abuse it. If not now, then later.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

The way I see it is as follows...

A Corporations goal is to make money for it's share holders,

A Governments goal is to stay in power BUT since the US has Term Limits (the best part of the American Political System in my mind) the government SHOULD be more concerned about legacy, reputation and the future of their political party.

By this logic you have FAR more reason to trust the government than The Corporations. At least you have a built in system for getting rid of and changing the rules when it comes to The Government, as opposed to corporations, which seem to make their own rules.

No, no, NO! That is completely senseless logic. A Corporation gives you a choice to buy their items, you are not forced. As such, they must work WITH you to entice you enough to buy the product. Since multiple corporations sell the same product, they are effectively fighting for your attention through a competing market which means they will have to either provide a superior product or a cheaper product.

The government FORCES you to pay for their product (taxes) even if you don't want to (say, public Schools if you have a child in private schools). If they make the situation worse, they just TAKE more of your money to 'fix' it. There's no competition so they don't really give a damn, what there really is is a mafia type system. You pay or you go to jail, so why should you care about getting your moneys worth?


With this logic, you have FAR more reason to trust a corporation. Atleast you can CHOOSE what you want with a corporation and punish them for not following rules buy not giving them money. You can't do that with the government, which seem to make their own rules.

Spot on, the government make the rules.

Look at education, public education is a cruel joke. Yet, people still have to pay for it even if they send their kids to private education.. It wouldn't be to bad though if we actually knew where our money went but the government just says, "Hey guise, we need some money and we're going to put it somewhere.. So yeah, hand over your check."

Not to mention public health care is a failing system, with extremely long waits and regulations.

I do agree some regulations should be put in place though, just the same way I would agree about loans. The rate should not be adjustable.. That said, I wonder if corporations are still going to offer health benefits with socialized health care. If they stop offering them, then people will want more money.. Which would cause inflation and fill the governments pockets.

 

[Cerebreus]

i just find it hilarious that the american right has suddenly launched a massive offensive... against the british NHS!! fuckin' ignorant twats, i actually heard one woman say, "we don't want no NHS, we're america not Russia!!" i could almost hear the hicks from south park shouting "rabble, rabble" behind her.

i may not be familiar with the particular issues of american healthcare, but my mum's friend works for the red cross or medicine's sans frontieres or something, and one of the places they go most frequently is america and they get miles of lines of people without insurance waiting for medical attention. more than in africa or the developing world, so something needs to be done.

but again, being british i'm not aware of the particulars

In the UK, we do not have a monopoly. If you're dissatisfied with the NHS (though why the fuck you would be is beyond me), you can go private. So the single-payer system just went out of the window. Secondly, by introducing the state as a baseline, you are, in effect, guaranteeing competition within healthcare, due to the different motives of state and private entities.

I was not thinking about the NHS when I posted this. Please don't assume I am. That's not what my concerns are based on. Please see my replies to other comments to see the examples of my concerns.

 

[Skutch]

Please don't accuse me of that. I just said I was for regulating things. I don't want either to have the power.

Here's my objection to the single payer system: The railroad example I gave? How do I know that won't happen under the government? They would have the right to do anything they want since they are the provider.

As for changing the laws, I look at the elections in Iran and Zimbabwe and see that as a possibility of happening here.

America was founded on the principle of small government because of the fear of abuse and the encouragement of freedom.

I just worry that once government will have the power, they will abuse it. If not now, then later.

It was not my intention to accuse you of anything at all. I'm simply seeking clarity for the sake of understanding as many possible points of view on the topic as possible.
I quite agree that regulation would probably be the best way to go, if only because to me it seems like it would be the least painless. And that is one of the aspects of the reform that is pretty much guaranteed to be passed. Very little would have to change inside the current health care infrastructure, aside from the establishment of a government agency that could and would hopefully severely *****-slap any corporation that continued to game the system.
I understand your weariness to the idea of government having singular control over such a vital service, but keep in mind that just like now when there are voices within government that cry out against the reform, there will be voices and watchful eyes to keep any agency or government program reasonably honest. And that's not something you can say about corporations.
If the choice ends up being between keeping what we have now, a system that bankrupts hundreds of thousands of people every year while denying care to the people that need it most, and going all the way to the full-out government plan, I consider the government to be the lesser of those two evils.

 

[Cliff_m85]

The way I see it is as follows...

A Corporations goal is to make money for it's share holders,

A Governments goal is to stay in power BUT since the US has Term Limits (the best part of the American Political System in my mind) the government SHOULD be more concerned about legacy, reputation and the future of their political party.

By this logic you have FAR more reason to trust the government than The Corporations. At least you have a built in system for getting rid of and changing the rules when it comes to The Government, as opposed to corporations, which seem to make their own rules.

No, no, NO! That is completely senseless logic. A Corporation gives you a choice to buy their items, you are not forced. As such, they must work WITH you to entice you enough to buy the product. Since multiple corporations sell the same product, they are effectively fighting for your attention through a competing market which means they will have to either provide a superior product or a cheaper product.

The government FORCES you to pay for their product (taxes) even if you don't want to (say, public Schools if you have a child in private schools). If they make the situation worse, they just TAKE more of your money to 'fix' it. There's no competition so they don't really give a damn, what there really is is a mafia type system. You pay or you go to jail, so why should you care about getting your moneys worth?


With this logic, you have FAR more reason to trust a corporation. Atleast you can CHOOSE what you want with a corporation and punish them for not following rules buy not giving them money. You can't do that with the government, which seem to make their own rules.

Spot on, the government make the rules.

Look at education, public education is a cruel joke. Yet, people still have to pay for it even if they send their kids to private education.. It wouldn't be to bad though if we actually knew where our money went but the government just says, "Hey guise, we need some money and we're going to put it somewhere.. So yeah, hand over your check."

Not to mention public health care is a failing system, with extremely long waits and regulations.

I do agree some regulations should be put in place though, just the same way I would agree about loans. The rate should not be adjustable.. That said, I wonder if corporations are still going to offer health benefits with socialized health care. If they stop offering them, then people will want more money.. Which would cause inflation and fill the governments pockets.

Not to mention that our public education system has, bar none, the WORST union I've ever seen. Have you heard about 'rubber rooms'? Hardly anyone has.


See, if a teacher sexually harrasses a student they don't get fired right away. There are procedures that the school must go through first. Average time for those procedures are about 4 to 6 years. So for 4-6 years they continue to get paid even if the evidence is obvious. So what do the schools do? They can't have the teacher near students obviously. They send them to an empty building where they clock in, read magazines or watch movies, and then clock out. Paid to do nothing. Add that teachers, due to the system, are encouraged to over spend so they continue to get a large budget at the end of the year.

Public schools, due to lack of competition since you can't really choose the school for your kid, tend not to really care about your kid but rather the cash. It's been proven that private schools tend to produce smarter children.

 

[Cerebreus]

Please don't accuse me of that. I just said I was for regulating things. I don't want either to have the power.

Here's my objection to the single payer system: The railroad example I gave? How do I know that won't happen under the government? They would have the right to do anything they want since they are the provider.

As for changing the laws, I look at the elections in Iran and Zimbabwe and see that as a possibility of happening here.

America was founded on the principle of small government because of the fear of abuse and the encouragement of freedom.

I just worry that once government will have the power, they will abuse it. If not now, then later.

It was not my intention to accuse you of anything at all. I'm simply seeking clarity for the sake of understanding as many possible points of view on the topic as possible.
I quite agree that regulation would probably be the best way to go, if only because to me it seems like it would be the least painless. And that is one of the aspects of the reform that is pretty much guaranteed to be passed. Very little would have to change inside the current health care infrastructure, aside from the establishment of a government agency that could and would hopefully severely *****-slap any corporation that continued to game the system.
I understand your weariness to the idea of government having singular control over such a vital service, but keep in mind that just like now when there are voices within government that cry out against the reform, there will be voices and watchful eyes to keep any agency or government program reasonably honest. And that's not something you can say about corporations.
If the choice ends up being between keeping what we have now, a system that bankrupts hundreds of thousands of people every year while denying care to the people that need it most, and going all the way to the full-out government plan, I consider the government to be the lesser of those two evils.

I truly hope that isn't the choice we have to make. It would be stupid if that's what we need to decide.

 

[Theophenes]

It's been proven that private schools tend to produce smarter children.

It's been proven that private school kids tend to, on the whole, TEST better than public school children. Since most private schools can pick and choose their clientele while public schools accept everyone who applies (in theory), I don't really see correlation being equivalent to causation here.

Sorry for being off-topic, but education blanket statements irritate me. Also, the "rubber room" policy, as far as a I know, is not universally applied. Every school has its own tenure-related laws on how such procedures are to be made.

As to who gets to be in charge of health-care, I really wish medical practitioners got to make choices. Right now, we seem to be intent on a shift from corporate bureaucrats with no brains motivated only by pocketbooks to a bunch of government lawyers, who are instead motivated by political ambition and saving face. Personally, my gut instinct tells me the people who couldn't get food into New Orleans five days after Katrina are going to be about as useful at health decisions as they are on foreign affairs.