National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

[GaryC 7]

The free market only works when there is true competition and regulations that ensure fairness with that competition.

Now your statement makes sense. And I agree. That is why the single payer system will not work. It's a government controlled monopoly.

Gary, be consistent. On one hand you've said you accept some regulations but then you keep going on these rhetorical rants about your disdain for regulations. What do you want? No regulations?

I think I have made myself very clear. The less government gets in the way of the free market the better we will all be.

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

The free market only works when there is true competition and regulations that ensure fairness with that competition.

Now your statement makes sense. And I agree. That is why the single payer system will not work. It's a government controlled monopoly.

Gary, be consistent. On one hand you've said you accept some regulations but then you keep going on these rhetorical rants about your disdain for regulations. What do you want? No regulations?

I think I have made myself very clear. The less government gets in the way of the free market the better we will all be.

You made it clear that you avoid getting into specifics. You argue in generalities which is why these arguments become circular.

[GaryC 7]

You made it clear that you avoid getting into specifics. You argue in generalities which is why these arguments become circular.

My position is very clear and to the point. More government = bad. Less government = good. That is my basic way of thinking. If you want to get down to specifics then we could spend an eternity arguing about it. I will repeat myself once again. The way I see it is like this. You think that the government and the regulations and restrictions they impose are the solution. I think the government and the rules and regulations they impose is the problem.

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

You made it clear that you avoid getting into specifics. You argue in generalities which is why these arguments become circular.

My position is very clear and to the point. More government = bad. Less government = good. That is my basic way of thinking. If you want to get down to specifics then we could spend an eternity arguing about it. I will repeat myself once again. The way I see it is like this. You think that the government and the regulations and restrictions they impose are the solution. I think the government and the rules and regulations they impose is the problem.

Gary, breathe deep...stop and think before you type your next line. We're aren't arguing over the amount of regulation - at least that wasn't what you were ranting about. You speak with a general disdain towards regulations but then you have said you accept some regulation. So one more time - what specific regulations are you against? Or give an example of existing regulation with say, insurance companies that you think we should do away with?

[GaryC 7]

You made it clear that you avoid getting into specifics. You argue in generalities which is why these arguments become circular.

My position is very clear and to the point. More government = bad. Less government = good. That is my basic way of thinking. If you want to get down to specifics then we could spend an eternity arguing about it. I will repeat myself once again. The way I see it is like this. You think that the government and the regulations and restrictions they impose are the solution. I think the government and the rules and regulations they impose is the problem.

Gary, breathe deep...stop and think before you type your next line. We're aren't arguing over the amount of regulation - at least that wasn't what you were ranting about. You speak with a general disdain towards regulations but then you have said you accept some regulation. So one more time - what specific regulations are you against? Or give an example of existing regulation with say, insurance companies that you think we should do away with?

Any regulation that restricts the free market is wrong. Is that clear enough? There should be regulations to protect the public safety and to insure that no laws have been broken. Other than that it should be wide open.

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

You made it clear that you avoid getting into specifics. You argue in generalities which is why these arguments become circular.

My position is very clear and to the point. More government = bad. Less government = good. That is my basic way of thinking. If you want to get down to specifics then we could spend an eternity arguing about it. I will repeat myself once again. The way I see it is like this. You think that the government and the regulations and restrictions they impose are the solution. I think the government and the rules and regulations they impose is the problem.

Gary, breathe deep...stop and think before you type your next line. We're aren't arguing over the amount of regulation - at least that wasn't what you were ranting about. You speak with a general disdain towards regulations but then you have said you accept some regulation. So one more time - what specific regulations are you against? Or give an example of existing regulation with say, insurance companies that you think we should do away with?

Any regulation that restricts the free market is wrong. Is that clear enough? There should be regulations to protect the public safety and to insure that no laws have been broken. Other than that it should be wide open.

I give up, Gary. Cheers.

[GaryC 7]

I give up, Gary. Cheers.

Yah!! I finally wore him down!! hehe.

Cheers Steven. We will just have to agree to disagree. It's fun sparring with you.

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

I give up, Gary. Cheers.

Yah!! I finally wore him down!! hehe.

Cheers Steven. We will just have to agree to disagree. It's fun sparring with you.

I'm dizzy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For some reason I'm reminded of the unemotional Vulcans in Star Trek - who were always portrayed as being the good guys. Yet a people who only deal in logic, it seems to me, would be the worst kind of totalitarian society...

Gary - let me ask you this. Two scenarios from my own life - both totally 100% true:

1) My father in law almost had a heart attack because his insurance provider decided that because he hadn't had an angina attack in a while that he didn't need to have a cardiologist. We found out some months after the wedding that he had collapsed in the hotel room on the same day but kept it quiet because he didn't want his problem to affect our day.

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

BTW if this is legal, as it seems to be, then it is rampant. There was a woman on here a few months back who works as a nurse in a hospital who said that she gets calls from insurance companies all day, questioning the prescriptions and treatment giving to particular patients and asking her if they have tried particular (in other words, cheaper) drugs.

Do you think that this should be legal?

2) A friend of mine in his middle 50's, who is caring for his (Alzheimers afflicted) father whilst at the same time running a busy surveying business with my mother in law had a mild stroke just before xmas. He has insurance - but the cost of a hospital stay could well jeopardise his business. As a result he makes the somewhat risky choice of doing all the tests via outpatient services rather than have it taken care of then and there in the hospital.

Question: What is he supposed to do?

Edited February 10, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW Gary - how does your "on the record" support of The Patriot Act tie into:

More government = bad. Less government = good

?

[DeadPoolX 9]

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

I'm not Gary, but I have to respond to this...

No, I don't think non-medically trained personnel should be able to overrule a doctor's diagonsis or prescription; however, if the government were in-charge of healthcare, how would it be any different? Those in government calling the shots certainly wouldn't be physicians. They'd be politicians or other types of bureaucrats, all of whom wouldn't be any more qualified to question or overrule a doctor's diagnosis than a private insurance company.

I still find it ALMOST amusing how everyone completely ignored my alternative healthcare plan earlier, and continued arguing with each other. I don't think any one here (or in the U.S.) actually wants a solution. It seems everyone just wants to bicker about it and use the topic as fuel for argumentative fire.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

I'm not Gary, but I have to respond to this...

No, I don't think non-medically trained personnel should be able to overrule a doctor's diagonsis or prescription; however, if the government were in-charge of healthcare, how would it be any different? Those in government calling the shots certainly wouldn't be physicians. They'd be politicians or other types of bureaucrats, all of whom wouldn't be any more qualified to question or overrule a doctor's diagnosis than a private insurance company.

Actually, from my experience, the problem with the UK NHS is that certain procedures and drugs are not available on it (which comes down to budget and funding) not with bureaucrats overriding the diagnosis of trained medical personnel in specific cases.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still find it ALMOST amusing how everyone completely ignored my alternative healthcare plan earlier, and continued arguing with each other. I don't think any one here (or in the U.S.) actually wants a solution. It seems everyone just wants to bicker about it and use the topic as fuel for argumentative fire.

Returning money from taxation begs the question - why not just tax less to begin with?

[DeadPoolX 9]

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

I'm not Gary, but I have to respond to this...

No, I don't think non-medically trained personnel should be able to overrule a doctor's diagonsis or prescription; however, if the government were in-charge of healthcare, how would it be any different? Those in government calling the shots certainly wouldn't be physicians. They'd be politicians or other types of bureaucrats, all of whom wouldn't be any more qualified to question or overrule a doctor's diagnosis than a private insurance company.

Actually, from my experience, the problem with the UK NHS is that certain procedures and drugs are not available on it (which comes down to budget and funding) not with bureaucrats overriding the diagnosis of trained medical personnel in specific cases.

And WHY are certain procedures and medications not available on the UK NHS? Because of bureaucrats meddling with the budget and funding for healthcare! That indirectly affects a physician's ability to treat patients.

I still find it ALMOST amusing how everyone completely ignored my alternative healthcare plan earlier, and continued arguing with each other. I don't think any one here (or in the U.S.) actually wants a solution. It seems everyone just wants to bicker about it and use the topic as fuel for argumentative fire.

Returning money from taxation begs the question - why not just tax less to begin with?

Hey, I'm all for that. The less people are taxed here, the better. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll ever happen. Chances are, my idea won't ever happen either. It's too bad, really. I figure that it'd be a nice compromise between universal health coverage and private healthcare.

[GaryC 7]

For some reason I'm reminded of the unemotional Vulcans in Star Trek - who were always portrayed as being the good guys. Yet a people who only deal in logic, it seems to me, would be the worst kind of totalitarian society...

Gary - let me ask you this. Two scenarios from my own life - both totally 100% true:

1) My father in law almost had a heart attack because his insurance provider decided that because he hadn't had an angina attack in a while that he didn't need to have a cardiologist. We found out some months after the wedding that he had collapsed in the hotel room on the same day but kept it quiet because he didn't want his problem to affect our day.

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

BTW if this is legal, as it seems to be, then it is rampant. There was a woman on here a few months back who works as a nurse in a hospital who said that she gets calls from insurance companies all day, questioning the prescriptions and treatment giving to particular patients and asking her if they have tried particular (in other words, cheaper) drugs.

Do you think that this should be legal?

2) A friend of mine in his middle 50's, who is caring for his (Alzheimers afflicted) father whilst at the same time running a busy surveying business with my mother in law had a mild stroke just before xmas. He has insurance - but the cost of a hospital stay could well jeopardise his business. As a result he makes the somewhat risky choice of doing all the tests via outpatient services rather than have it taken care of then and there in the hospital.

Question: What is he supposed to do?

I can't and will not try to answer what is a personal decision that you and your family did. You can parade an endless procession of hard luck stories but it will not change my stance. I have personal stories that are just as tragic or more so than yours but I will not trot them out as a way to show I do understand what you and others are going through. I am not heartless. I just think this is a better way than the government doing it. I will repeat it again. The free market will find a way to make it a better system. Doing it by decree via the government will not work. I will not submit to it.