Government Health Care

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1251511985' post='1957592']
It may be one component thereof, but that's a bit of a leap, suggesting that a public option would mean that one day we're going to have a completely socialized health care system.
That would be a bit like saying that because we allow girl altar servers, well, that's the first step to ordaining women.
[/quote]

No, it is not if you are know your history, and even the present. Government grows and grows and grows. You give Uncle Sugar a cookie he'll want a glass of milk. The 'public option' would put many many citizens out of work because the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly, that doesn't have to worry about profitability or even breaking even, it could [i]perpetually[/i] go in the red at the dime of the tax payers.

Anyway the "public option" is just watered down language used to trick people into a government run socialized health care system. Similar to using "Pro-Choice" as trickery language for killing babies.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1251512439' post='1957595']
No, it is not if you are know your history, and even the present. Government grows and grows and grows. You give Uncle Sugar a cookie he'll want a glass of milk. The 'public option' would put many many citizens out of work because the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly, that doesn't have to worry about profitability or even breaking even, it could [i]perpetually[/i] go in the red at the dime of the tax payers.[/quote]
The people of the United States will not stand for socialized health care. People will elect Obamas and Pelosis while they spew their rainbows and sunshine...but when it impacts them, their votes will walk, I guarantee it.
See: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Surgery-vs--Non-surgical-treatment-for-back-disorders-16012-1/
This was a randomized study, meaning that participants were placed into treatment groups on a randomized basis. If you can find the full study somewhere, you'll see that about 75% percent of the people opted out of being randomly placed into a treatment group. Of the 25% who consented, only about 50% of those (so 12.5% overall) went with the treatment group into which they were initially placed. This illustrates pretty clearly that if nothing else, Americans like being able to choose their treatment options. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al can do all they want to socialize this country, but no change is permanent. I have confidence that the Americans would not stand for socialized health care. That's the beauty of being able to change regimes every four years.
[quote]
Anyway the "public option" is just watered down language used to trick people into a government run socialized health care system. Similar to using "Pro-Choice" as trickery language for killing babies.
[/quote]
Still a stretch, and not even a comparison. An option for a basic health care providence for those who cannot afford it is not even equivalent to the slaughter of the unborn, and frankly, I don't like that you trivialize such a matter by comparing it to something which, in the grand scheme, is much less pernicious.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1251514592' post='1957606']

Still a stretch, and not even a comparison. An option for a basic health care providence for those who cannot afford it is not even equivalent to the slaughter of the unborn, and frankly, I don't like that you trivialize such a matter by comparing it to something which, in the grand scheme, is much less pernicious.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? The 'comparison' is how both are using language to trick Americans, to hide it's true meaning. That was all there was to the 'comparison.'

But since it's out there now, how will the [i]public option[/i] not pay for abortions?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1251516170' post='1957617']
But since it's out there now, how will the [i]public option[/i] not pay for abortions?
[/quote]
That's a good question, and naturally, it shouldn't.
I believe you possibly misconceive my point - I'm not arguing for Obama's solution. It's got flaws a plenty. I am, however, still in favor of a public option with which to aid the least of our brethren.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1251516170' post='1957617']
What are you talking about? The 'comparison' is how both are using language to trick Americans, to hide it's true meaning. That was all there was to the 'comparison.'
[/quote]
Except that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. A public option to pay for health care for those who could not otherwise afford it could be just that, if done correctly. You seem to have two political settings: communism and anarchy. Government is a spectrum, not a rocker switch.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1251514592' post='1957606']
The people of the United States will not stand for socialized health care. People will elect Obamas and Pelosis while they spew their rainbows and sunshine...but when it impacts them, their votes will walk, I guarantee it.
See: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Surgery-vs--Non-surgical-treatment-for-back-disorders-16012-1/
This was a randomized study, meaning that participants were placed into treatment groups on a randomized basis. If you can find the full study somewhere, you'll see that about 75% percent of the people opted out of being randomly placed into a treatment group. Of the 25% who consented, only about 50% of those (so 12.5% overall) went with the treatment group into which they were initially placed. This illustrates pretty clearly that if nothing else, Americans like being able to choose their treatment options. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al can do all they want to socialize this country, but no change is permanent. I have confidence that the Americans would not stand for socialized health care. That's the beauty of being able to change regimes every four years.
[/quote]

Yes the people would be, slowly, or by trickery. Like a frog in a pot that slowing boils, or the magician with the slight of hand.

The [i]public option[/i] that is now being pushed by the government is a would be government run monopoly that would slowly kill the private sector, and force most people into it, by the threat of high tax/fine.

If you define [i]public option[/i] differently then perhaps to clear up the confusion use different language.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1251516579' post='1957620']
The [i]public option[/i] that is now being pushed by the government is a would be government run monopoly that would slowly kill the private sector, and force most people into it, by the threat of high tax/fine.
[/quote]
I guess our vital difference then is that you see a country of people who are sheep being herded by their bellwether into the socialist slaughterhouse and I see a country of people who have the American spirit imbued still within them, and would be able to eventually find a balance between all or nothing, so to speak.

Edited August 29, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1251516577' post='1957619']
Except that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. A public option to pay for health care for those who could not otherwise afford it could be just that, if done correctly. You seem to have two political settings: communism and anarchy. Government is a spectrum, not a rocker switch.
[/quote]

Again not in the case of the current bills in congress. They are using the term 'public option' for what is clearly a would be government run monopoly, that would require "everybody in, nobody out*".



[i]*Barrack Obama[/i]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1251516741' post='1957626']
I guess our vital difference then is that you see a country of people who are sheep being herded by their bellwether into the socialist slaughterhouse and I see a country of people who have the American spirit imbued still within them, and would be able to eventually find a balance between all or nothing, so to speak.
[/quote]

Then we are talking about the current bills in congress. In that case perhaps you have unfortunately bought in to the emotional argument for the 'public option' it will 'help' more than just the poor. It would over time require most Americans to be 'covered' by the 'public option.'

I'm not using an emotional argument such as [i]socialist slaughterhouses.[/i] I have read the bill, listened to the elected officials who support it and gathered a rather logical conclusion. That the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly that would put private businesses out of business, and further unemployment which would have ripple effects on the economy which would cause further unemployment. Which would also cause more people to be on the 'public option.'

They just in the last couple weeks started using the language 'public option' for ws before government run health, that 'would cover most Americans'. That is how it was portrayed by it's supports before the big stink abougt it. Now it's supports have repackaged the same old package of fail.

Edited August 29, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1251516770' post='1957628']
Again not in the case of the current bills in congress. They are using the term 'public option' for what is clearly a would be government run monopoly, that would require "everybody in, nobody out*".



[i]*Barrack Obama[/i]
[/quote]
You only think that because you want to believe "public option" means that the government takes complete control when in reality, it's only an [i]option[/i] along side private insurance. I don't see what interest the government would have to put insurance companies out of business other than some vast conspiracy (which i don't buy, sorry)

[Winchester]

Although many in government are seeking ways to increase government control and government money is the best way to control a group. Threatening tax exemption status keeps religious groups relatively docile, for instance.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='28 August 2009 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1251493819' post='1957400']
The biggest problem in the current system, IMHO, has much less to do with the structure of insurance companies and more to do with the rampant perception of litigation as a remedy. Doctors no longer practice medicine in order to heal, the practice defensive medicine from a checklist. People have a misguided belief that doctors can fix anything, and when they aren't able to, that somehow we should just sue them into oblivion.[/quote]


I was watching a town hall meeting in Reston, VA on C-SPAN last week (I actually watched it twice) and Howard Dean was one of the presenters. The question was asked why tort reform was not part of the health care bill. Dean was honest and said that those writing the bill did not want lawyers coming after them.... that they could not take on everyone who would oppose the bill and add lawyers to it, too. Sad, but true.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='29 August 2009 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1251528312' post='1957672']
You only think that because you want to believe "public option" means that the government takes complete control when in reality, it's only an [i]option[/i] along side private insurance. I don't see what interest the government would have to put insurance companies out of business other than some vast conspiracy (which i don't buy, sorry)
[/quote]

So where the HR 3200 states that after the bill becomes law "Grandfathered" Insurance companies will not be allowed to take on new clients is just a vast conspiracy that the writers of that bill are part of? And when the elected supports of that bill and others say similar things they are also part of the vast conspiracy?

[elizabeth09]

The goverment should have some role in the heath care. We should at least pay for at least 60% of it. But I think that we, the people, once have the goverment paying for things, then the people will want more free stuff, like paying for ours, the people, college.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='elizabeth09' date='29 August 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1251566855' post='1957909']
The goverment should have some role in the heath care. We should at least pay for at least 60% of it. But I think that we, the people, once have the goverment paying for things, then the people will want more free stuff, like paying for ours, the people, college.
[/quote]


1. The government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers give money to the government, and then the government spends the tax revenues.

2. There is no such thing as "free stuff." Someone has to pay for it. I can assure you, the government never gives away ANYTHING for free. There is always a cost associated with it somewhere. If they aren't getting money from you by way of tax revenues, then they are getting a vote from you by way of making you the beneficiary of some government program where they let you think that you are getting something for free.

This is the essence of government. I think the biggest debate is not that the underprivileged should be assisted with their needs, but in how that should be accomplished. In past days much was done on the community level, when families still existed and neighbors knew each other. I still believe that is the best way to handle things, but as our culture has grown more mobile and the extended family community has begun to evaporate, people look increasingly toward a central organization to assist with these issues, ergo, government involvement.

It is an extremely complex issue.

[Hassan]

[quote name='picchick' date='25 August 2009 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1251173185' post='1955924']
<br /><br /><br />

I voted no. We do not need government care in order to have health care for all. Let's look at all the things that our governemnt has screwed up.
[/quote]



For example that trashy, third rate military.

[Winchester]

If the government runs health care, we are paying for 100% of it.

People are already getting free health care. The idiots who've established welfare didn't put the right restrictions on it, so we've created a sense of entitlement that's spread even through the working classes.

We have a right life, so we have a right to health care. We are not, however, entitled to health care. Our leaders are simply not intelligent enough to develop a decent view of the role of government. This is what happens when we champion putting the common in charge of the nation. We get government by feelings.

Government should move slowly, but people want it to rush. Then they complain that the rules aren't effective. Well, most congressman appear to be, at best, marginally literate. Our President can say: "hope" and "change" and we think that's awesome. Yeah! Hope! Wooo!

Our population is not diminishing due to lack of health care. The shiftless get their friggin medicines. They get bags of them. Huge bags full of medicines. They take 800 dollar rides in ambulances for headaches. There's nothing we can do because the stupid idiots running the government think everyone is entitled to free stuff. They're not. You're not. I'm not.

[picchick]

[quote name='rachael' date='27 August 2009 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1251411801' post='1957050']
Then how can costs be reduced...?
[/quote]
I think there are a couple of ways that it can be reduced. As a start, hospitals need to have EVERYONE (housekeepers, nurses, aides and DOCTORS) reduce waste. Some of the things they can do? Shut off lights, only get what you need in a procedure, WASH YOUR HANDS, et. al. These, in the greater picture, seem like useless actions but in long run I think it would lessen the cost of health care. Furthermore, government agencies keep imposing new things for us to do. Some of it I see as necessary for the health and safety of our clients. However, for example, they have now made a new way to dispose of medication and rappers. We have 3-5 boxes to throw stuff in. One is a blue box that I believe all non hazardous waste can be thrown into. Then we have a black box for hazardous. Then there is a red box for blood and body fluids. Then there is a pink box for something else. Why do we need all these boxes? Why not throw all the medication rappers in the same box? Then treat it all like hazardous waste?

and....

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='28 August 2009 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1251493819' post='1957400']
The biggest problem in the current system, IMHO, has much less to do with the structure of insurance companies and more to do with the rampant perception of litigation as a remedy. Doctors no longer practice medicine in order to heal, the practice defensive medicine from a checklist. People have a misguided belief that doctors can fix anything, and when they aren't able to, that somehow we should just sue them into oblivion.

Not to say that people should not have recourse for true malpractice; of course our system allows for individuals to seek remedy for such instances. However, people think that if they aren't completely cured every time, then the doctors must be at fault. Doctors, in order to head off a lawsuit, order every test under the sun for some of the most mundane symptom sets. Every time a person comes in with a sore leg they get an MRI. Because of this extreme overuse of the most expensive diagnostic tests, insurance companies are forced to structure coverages in order to curtail expense. Not to make the insurance companies blameless, because they are profit-making animals and looking for a way to make a buck. But it is easier to save money when the things you are paying for cost less. Insurance companies can't continue to pay more for procedures and keep premiums low too.

In the end, it all comes down to the overwhelming sense of entitlement in our country. People think that lawsuits fix everything, and they don't. All this is removing the free market's ability to regulate cost and making government intervention more and more likely. It is a vicious cycle with a number of different external variables playing a part.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

The government being involved is not going to lessen the costs of health care. This has to take place on individual levels. Governement involvement will only make more costs for those of us who can "afford" health care.

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 August 2009 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1251567549' post='1957916']
For example that trashy, third rate military.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
oh...you mean the one that protects you?

It is not perfect but this is something I think the government needs to institute. And then of course we have a right to protect ourselves. But as a country we need some sort of "mass protection".

Edited September 1, 2009 by picchick

[elizabeth09]

Marie-Therese, you are right. How about we tell this to the people who want free stuff?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' date='27 August 2009 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1251406748' post='1956996']
Besides...one of the first functions the US govt performed was the postal service. 233 years later and they STILL can;t get it right AND they are going bankrupt. You telling me you want the same idiots that can't consistently put my mail into MY mailbox running health care in this country? RIIIGHT! Take the red pill please.
[/quote]

My mail arrives just fine... maybe your mail carrier doesn't like you.