National Healthcare. What do you think of it?

[magekillr]

Mage, I'm a Libertarian and an Objectivist. I don't like Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, liberals, convservatives, Christians, none of them really.

 

 

 

I know what you libertarians and your Ron Paul/Ayn Rand worship is all about. I've been in this business for a few years, seen it all and heard it all before. I deal with you clowns on a daily basis, because the internet is full of you.

 

 

 

I am and will always be an individual who chooses to freely associate with other people. I do not like to be forced to cooperate at the point of a gun. The gun of course being what the federal government uses to accomplish it's means. The federal government of course the only entity that can legally use force to accomplish it's goals.

 

 

 

See, this is why libertarians in America fail. Real libertarians (you know, the original ones who were socialist commie hippies in the 19th century? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque ) are against all forms of authority. They don't just oppose the federal government; they oppose corporations and they oppose state and local governments.

 

 

 

Freedom isn't about one sole entity, and that's why libertarians in America have the most fail ideology in America (among other things, like that their ideas would make things way worse than they are). Neocons might be worse, though, because people take them seriously and they start wars for no reason.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: Since this is about health care, I think this would be a perfect time to talk to a libertarian and how they think we solve health care. So, Me_Hate_Libs, how do we solve health care? Even if you don't care about the uninsured, which seeing as you love Ayn Rand you probably don't, what about yourself? The rising cost of health insurance is causing a lot of employers to drop their plans, and by 2020 we're expected to spend double what we spend now. Can you afford spending double? It affects you just as much as everyone else.

[Hawks]

edit: Since this is about health care, I think this would be a perfect time to talk to a libertarian and how they think we solve health care. So, Me_Hate_Libs, how do we solve health care? Even if you don't care about the uninsured, which seeing as you love Ayn Rand you probably don't, what about yourself? The rising cost of health insurance is causing a lot of employers to drop their plans, and by 2020 we're expected to spend double what we spend now. Can you afford spending double? It affects you just as much as everyone else.

 

 

(sort of being on the same side as Me Hate Libs I'll chuck my opinion in) and this isn't going to be entirely about healthcare, also about taxes and crap.

 

 

 

The government needs to get the hell out of everybody's lives. The only reason a federal government should exist is to provide a military power and a common 'state' (so Texas doesn't declare war on Oklahoma and random crap like that, so there's not 50 individual countries). They don't need to be providing for everyone. If they want to do good for people, lower tuition, lower taxes on people, reduce malpractice suits by limiting what can be sued for and how much you can get, which in turn lowers doctor's malpractice insurance, which lowers their costs which means they charge less. Force drug companies to offer a cheaper alternative or have a prescription payment assist program (most do) (the only reason they charge so much is so they can continue research). Have a state-run health care program run by EDUCATED and PROFESSIONAL people which is a buy-in program and optional. You get what you pay for in this case. Have a discounted version available as a 'pay as you can afford it' sliding scale which covers doctor visits and emergency care. Have an additional program to cover children and old folks (again on a sliding scale, although it only covers under 18s and over 60s) Create an incentive for insurance companies to cover people and negotiate cooperatives for people who have a certain condition (asthma, diabetes) and buy the drugs they need at a discount in large amounts so it's cheaper for them if they choose not to get additional insurance. The co-op would negotiate special-care doctors and such contracts for the members. Have a state sales tax of 15% (ish not sure on that) which would support (state-run institutions) public fire, police, and roads, etc. Lottery tickets would go to the schools (as they apparently mostly do already). Levy an additional tax on tobacco and alcohol of 10% or so which would go into running the discounted insurance programs. Abolish any and all income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. The only tax would be a flat sales tax of 15% and a tax on alcohol and tobacco of an additional 10%. States could change this flat tax rate as needed based on their population.

 

 

 

If I forgot something, please tell me.

[magekillr]

The government needs to get the hell out of everybody's lives.

 

 

 

In what aspect? Do we get rid of the government? How do they "get out of your lives?"

 

 

 

The only reason a federal government should exist is to provide a military power and a common 'state' (so Texas doesn't declare war on Oklahoma and random crap like that, so there's not 50 individual countries).

 

 

 

Hmm, you kind of answered my first question here, so let's move on. So, you want to get rid of the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, COBRA, patents, etc?

 

 

 

They don't need to be providing for everyone.

 

 

 

Why do you have "everyone" listed? Should they get out of peoples' lives, or should they only get out of some peoples' lives?

 

 

 

If they want to do good for people, lower tuition, lower taxes on people, reduce malpractice suits by limiting what can be sued for and how much you can get, which in turn lowers doctor's malpractice insurance, which lowers their costs which means they charge less.

 

 

 

Hmm, interesting. How do we do this? How does the government lower tuition? That's called a price control, and it's against what libertarians are about.

 

 

 

How do you determine what you can sue for? 38 states already have tort reform of some sort, and many have place caps on damages. It hasn't done much, just to let you know. Also, without regulating the insurance industries (which I don't know why you guys are so set on protecting these immoral entities), they'll just pocket the differences and charge doctors the same rates anyway.

 

 

 

Also, can you explain why Britain and Canada don't have this problem, when they have the same way of dealing with malpractice that we do? They don't have special medical courts, and I'm pretty sure they don't cap awards. Why are their health care bills not spiraling out of control if this was the main driving factor?

 

 

 

Force drug companies to offer a cheaper alternative or have a prescription payment assist program (most do) (the only reason they charge so much is so they can continue research).

 

 

 

Actually, they charge so much because of our stupid patent laws. They're protected from competition, and they lobby people in congress like corporate Democrat Mike Ross for those protections; he likes those protections, too, because he has 100% share ownership in his drug company even though he "sold" it.

 

 

 

They also charge more because, well, frankly, Americans agree to pay more. The same drugs in Canada and France are 1/3 to 1/5 the price that they are here, because their governments act as giant negotiating firms, and negotiate with the companies for lower prices.

 

 

 

A prescription assistance program is ok, I guess, but it doesn't solve the issue of cost. We'd still be spending a lot more money for drugs, we'd just have them more available to other people through subsidies.

 

 

 

Have a state-run health care program run by EDUCATED and PROFESSIONAL people which is a buy-in program and optional.

 

 

 

You mean...like the public option being proposed by the Obama administration? Actually, your plan is more socialist than Obama's, because his would just act as a single payer system like Medicare. Yours expands the federal government even more by employing more federal doctors and nurses.

 

 

 

Have a discounted version available as a 'pay as you can afford it' sliding scale which covers doctor visits and emergency care.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Like, leasing health care payments or something? I'm not really sure what that would do, and it would strap a lot of people in just as much debt as they're in now.

 

 

 

Have an additional program to cover children and old folks (again on a sliding scale, although it only covers under 18s and over 60s)

 

 

 

Mmmk...so Medicare.

 

 

 

Create an incentive for insurance companies to cover people and negotiate cooperatives for people who have a certain condition (asthma, diabetes) and buy the drugs they need at a discount in large amounts so it's cheaper for them if they choose not to get additional insurance. The co-op would negotiate special-care doctors and such contracts for the members.

 

 

 

Co-ops have been proven not to work in the electric and phone industry. Prices only go up even higher because the co-op acts like a monopoly. Seeing as they don't work in the electric or phone industry, I'm not sure how this would work. Moreover, a lot of insurance companies already would qualify as co-ops, which is why I suspect Kent Conrad proposed them in the first place.

 

 

 

Have a state sales tax of 15% (ish not sure on that) which would support (state-run institutions) public fire, police, and roads, etc.

 

 

 

So....you want to kill the poor and help the rich?

 

 

 

Lottery tickets would go to the schools (as they apparently mostly do already).

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Like...a voucher system? I oppose vouchers the way they're done in America. Vouchers in Sweden and Finland are fantastic, and I would welcome a system like that.

 

 

 

Levy an additional tax on tobacco and alcohol of 10% or so which would go into running the discounted insurance programs.

 

 

 

National or state? And this would hurt the poor and addicted just as much. I'm not in favor of abolishing sin taxes, as they are an incentive to quit, but that sounds awfully high. Such a high alcohol tax could push people to bootleg alcohol, much like they do in Sweden.

 

 

 

Abolish any and all income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. The only tax would be a flat sales tax of 15% and a tax on alcohol and tobacco of an additional 10%.

 

 

 

So...you want to essentially return to the Gilded Age? Also, how do you pay for a Medicare-like system with just this? Medicare has its own tax right now as it is.

[Rebdragon]

mage, what's so immoral about insurance companies? They're just trying to make a profit like any other company- demonizing them just based on the field they're in doesn't seem to make much sense.

[magekillr]

mage, what's so immoral about insurance companies? They're just trying to make a profit like any other company- demonizing them just based on the field they're in doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

 

 

They're not immoral for existing, or trying to make a profit, it's HOW they do it. I don't care about tobacco companies profiting from people's health, but I do care when they start enacting measures that try and lie about the debate. For example, when tobacco companies lobbied Congress with their "studies" that there was no link between second hand smoke and cancer. That is immoral, and they did it because they knew it would hurt their profits to put in protections.

 

 

 

To same, insurance companies deny people care, don't allow people with pre-existing conditions, jack up rates for no reason other than the fact that they can (because they have monopolies by state...breaking up your company among states is a good way to avoid regulation) simply to maximize their profit, and people DIE and go into bankruptcy over it.

 

 

 

Insurance companies in every other country aren't for profit, aren't subject to the whims of their share holders, and don't deny care when people truly need it. Some are for profit there, but very few. The ones that are, are subject to very harsh regulation (no discrimination based on medical condition, age, sex, etc).

 

 

 

Of course, you're also talking to someone who doesn't believe in any morality but subjective personal morality; so what I think is immoral you might not, and that's fine.

[magekillr]

Excellent op-ed about how other great President's threw that bipartisancrap out the window.. The American people elected the majorities they did to see that party lead and govern, not to allow the losers to write the legislation. That's not how you lead, or govern. Roosevelt (2nd greatest President of all time, in my opinion) understood that:

 

 

 

President Obama's apparent readiness to backtrack on the public insurance option in his health care package is not just a concession to his political opponents this fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.

 

 

 

This was not true of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congresses that enacted the New Deal. With the exception of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (which gave the president authority to close the nations banks and which passed the House of Representatives unanimously), the principal legislative innovations of the 1930s were enacted over the vigorous opposition of a deeply entrenched minority. Majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents permission.

 

 

 

When Roosevelt asked Congress to establish the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide cheap electric power for the impoverished South, he did not consult with utility giants like Commonwealth and Southern. When he asked for the creation of a Securities and Exchange Commission to curb the excesses of Wall Street, he did not request the cooperation of those about to be regulated. When Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act divesting investment houses of their commercial banking functions, the Democrats did not need the approval of J. P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers.

 

 

 

Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard and Congress enacted legislation nullifying clauses in private contracts stipulating payment in gold over the heated opposition of many of the nations wealthy. The Agricultural Adjustment Act setting production quotas and establishing price supports was adopted over the fierce opposition of the nations food processors. Establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps was fought tooth and nail by organized labor because of the corps modest wages. Social Security became law over the ideological objections of those who believed that government was best which governed least and that individuals should fend for themselves or rely on charity. And the authority of the government to set maximum hours and minimum wages, as well as the right of labor to bargain collectively, was established despite the vociferous opposition of American business.

 

 

 

Roosevelt relished the opposition of vested interests. He fashioned his governing majority by deliberately attacking those who favored the status quo. His opponents hated him and he profited from their hatred. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today, he told a national radio audience on the eve of the 1936 election. They are unanimous in their hatred for me and I welcome their hatred.

 

 

 

Roosevelt sought consensus among his fellow Democrats, which is why he sometimes kowtowed to the Southern oligarchs who were the chairmen of Congressional committees. But his Republican opponents were relegated to the political equivalent of Siberia. Roosevelt rode up Pennsylvania Avenue with President Herbert Hoover to the inauguration in March 1933, but he never saw or spoke to him again not even in World War II.

 

 

 

For Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter, and he unabashedly waged class war. At the Democratic Convention in 1936, again speaking to a national radio audience, Roosevelt lambasted the economic royalists who had gained control of the nations wealth. To Congress he boasted of having earned the hatred of entrenched greed. In another speech he mocked the gentlemen in well-warmed and well-stocked clubs who criticized the governments relief efforts.

 

 

 

Roosevelt hived off the nations economic elite to win the support of the rest of the country. The vast majority of voters rallied to the president, but for a small minority he was the Devil incarnate. Few today remember the extent to which Roosevelt divided the nation. The sense of unity wrought by World War II blurred the divisiveness of the 1930s. Also, Roosevelt endeavored to ensure that more than half of the country was always on his side. Finally, and most important perhaps, the measures he championed have stood the test of time. It is difficult for Americans today to comprehend how anyone could have opposed Social Security, rural electrification, the regulation of Wall Street or the federal governments guarantee of individual bank deposits.

 

 

 

Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process. It is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices.

 

 

 

Health care reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Even if it is passed without Republican support, it would still be the law of the land.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opini ... ef=opinion