Healthcare reform -- Can It Happen Here?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

I hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to defend them. But the problem with "no profit motive" is a lack of reason. Money is perhaps one of mankind's greatest motivators and if that gets taken away, many would feel the were would be little point in doing a good (or even decent) job at handling their job. The job in this case, of course, would be handling healthcare.

Ah...that's a common misnomer of what profit motive means. First of all, you are comparing people doing their jobs (insurance adjuster for example) with profit motive. Except for the upper echelon of an insurance company the majority are schmucks just like you and me...they do their job and get a regular paycheck. However, for the shareholders and top executives, they rake in millions. And since they are motivated by profit and they essentially run the company, the less care they actually provide for their customers, the more profit they make. Not only that, for most Americans with insurance, you can't simply change your health insurance company so there's no true choice, thereby no true competition. The opponents of a national healthcare often use those two arguments as to why they are fundamentally against it, but when you really think it through, they are just straw man arguments.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[DeadPoolX 9]

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

I hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to defend them. But the problem with "no profit motive" is a lack of reason. Money is perhaps one of mankind's greatest motivators and if that gets taken away, many would feel the were would be little point in doing a good (or even decent) job at handling their job. The job in this case, of course, would be handling healthcare.

Ah...that's a common misnomer of what profit motive means. First of all, you are comparing people doing their jobs (insurance adjuster for example) with profit motive. Except for the upper echelon of an insurance company the majority are schmucks just like you and me...they do their job and get a regular paycheck. However, for the shareholders and top executives, they rake in millions. And since they are motivated by profit and they essentially run the company, the less care they actually provide for their customers, the more profit they make. Not only that, for most Americans with insurance, you can't simply change your health insurance company so there's no true choice, thereby no true competition. The opponents of a national healthcare often use those two arguments as to why they are fundamentally against it, but when you really think it through, they are just straw man arguments.

You're still missing something, though. The money for the entire operation (no pun intended) has to come from somewhere. The government can't just magically conjure it out of thin air and although it could print more money, doing so would only hurt our already-wounded dollar value.

If you're thinking of a major tax hike, keep dreaming. Most people, no matter what their income level is, feel they pay too much in taxes as it is. Asking them to pay higher taxes in order to cover someone else's illness wouldn't cut it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

I hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to defend them. But the problem with "no profit motive" is a lack of reason. Money is perhaps one of mankind's greatest motivators and if that gets taken away, many would feel the were would be little point in doing a good (or even decent) job at handling their job. The job in this case, of course, would be handling healthcare.

Ah...that's a common misnomer of what profit motive means. First of all, you are comparing people doing their jobs (insurance adjuster for example) with profit motive. Except for the upper echelon of an insurance company the majority are schmucks just like you and me...they do their job and get a regular paycheck. However, for the shareholders and top executives, they rake in millions. And since they are motivated by profit and they essentially run the company, the less care they actually provide for their customers, the more profit they make. Not only that, for most Americans with insurance, you can't simply change your health insurance company so there's no true choice, thereby no true competition. The opponents of a national healthcare often use those two arguments as to why they are fundamentally against it, but when you really think it through, they are just straw man arguments.

You're still missing something, though. The money for the entire operation (no pun intended) has to come from somewhere. The government can't just magically conjure it out of thin air and although it could print more money, doing so would only hurt our already-wounded dollar value.

If you're thinking of a major tax hike, keep dreaming. Most people, no matter what their income level is, feel they pay too much in taxes as it is. Asking them to pay higher taxes in order to cover someone else's illness wouldn't cut it.

I'm not missing it - I stated earlier in this thread, take away people's premiums they currently pay and for many Americans they would see an increase in their overall income even with the added cost in taxes for national healthcare. Polls have shown that about 60 percent are in favor of national healthcare even if it means paying more taxes in order that everyone is insured. Based on the Canadian model, we can expect to reduce our healthcare costs per capita by nearly 50 percent. That's more money back in people's pocket.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

I hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to defend them. But the problem with "no profit motive" is a lack of reason. Money is perhaps one of mankind's greatest motivators and if that gets taken away, many would feel the were would be little point in doing a good (or even decent) job at handling their job. The job in this case, of course, would be handling healthcare.

Ah...that's a common misnomer of what profit motive means. First of all, you are comparing people doing their jobs (insurance adjuster for example) with profit motive. Except for the upper echelon of an insurance company the majority are schmucks just like you and me...they do their job and get a regular paycheck. However, for the shareholders and top executives, they rake in millions. And since they are motivated by profit and they essentially run the company, the less care they actually provide for their customers, the more profit they make. Not only that, for most Americans with insurance, you can't simply change your health insurance company so there's no true choice, thereby no true competition. The opponents of a national healthcare often use those two arguments as to why they are fundamentally against it, but when you really think it through, they are just straw man arguments.

You're still missing something, though. The money for the entire operation (no pun intended) has to come from somewhere. The government can't just magically conjure it out of thin air and although it could print more money, doing so would only hurt our already-wounded dollar value.

If you're thinking of a major tax hike, keep dreaming. Most people, no matter what their income level is, feel they pay too much in taxes as it is. Asking them to pay higher taxes in order to cover someone else's illness wouldn't cut it.

I'm not missing it - I stated earlier in this thread, take away people's premiums they currently pay and for many Americans they would see an increase in their overall income even with the added cost in taxes for national healthcare. Polls have shown that about 60 percent are in favor of national healthcare even if it means paying more taxes in order that everyone is insured. Based on the Canadian model, we can expect to reduce our healthcare costs per capita by nearly 50 percent. That's more money back in people's pocket.

I suppose that depends on what sort of tax model is used, how much the tax actually costs and what level of coverage is offered. Even in Canada, their so-called "free" healthcare doesn't cover everything and there's still a need for some to get health insurance.

Since we're basing this on the Canadian model... how long do you think it'd take to get procedures completed? There can be -- and often is -- a very long wait time for many medical services in Canada. This can prove life-threatening if something needs to be done soon or immediately (which is many Canadians travel to the U.S. in order to get major procedures completed). The Canadian model also lacks the same level of technology that we enjoy in the United States. Most major U.S. cities have more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada does, for example. In order to directly compete, taxation would need to be higher than it is right now in Canada. If that weren't enough, it's a common sight to see a Canadian physician head to the U.S., where he or she can practice medicine and potentially earn much more, thereby causing a shortage of capable doctors.

As far as I can see... having healthcare access doesn't mean a whole lot if I need to wait eight months to make use of it, there's less technologically advanced equipment and above all, fewer skilled physicians. I'd really be in no better shape than I am now, assuming I lacked private health insurance.