Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

[no name 1]

I have no problem with it, but with this plan in particular, I have an issue with how its funded.

I was referring to posts 7 & 11. I highly doubt either one has used socialized health care yet feel free to dismiss it as 'Socialized medicine sucks' & 'agreed'. How eloquent.

[GaryC 7]

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

[Dan J 277]

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

Lets see here, you complain about the cost of public healthcare, but you ignore the fact that currently, private healthcare costs 50-100% more than the public systems that have been implemented in the developed world.

A cost which leave 47 million American uninsured. And when they require medical care, its those who can afford insurance that are footing the bill.

I fail to see how a private system is better, unless you are wealthy enough were cost isn't an issue.

[GaryC 7]

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

Lets see here, you complain about the cost of public healthcare, but you ignore the fact that currently, private healthcare costs 50-100% more than the public systems that have been implemented in the developed world.

A cost which leave 47 million American uninsured. And when they require medical care, its those who can afford insurance that are footing the bill.

I fail to see how a private system is better, unless you are wealthy enough were cost isn't an issue.

It's not just the cost but also the lack of personal freedom and control. I like the way my health care is. I worked hard to get where I am. I am not willing to give up control of that to the government.

Edited October 3, 2007 by GaryC

[Peikko 1,575]

If true, that would be a very sad indictment of the US governemt. Notwithstanding, it seems terrible to me that the availablitity of health care is driven by one's ability to pay. It also seems to be a terrible thing that even with health care insurance, people can still be left high and dry if somehow their insurance doesn't cover whatever illness they are struck down with. How can it be anything other when the prime motivation for the health care industry is profit?

[GaryC 7]

If true, that would be a very sad indictment of the US governemt. Notwithstanding, it seems terrible to me that the availablitity of health care is driven by one's ability to pay. It also seems to be a terrible thing that even with health care insurance, people can still be left high and dry if somehow their insurance doesn't cover whatever illness they are struck down with. How can it be anything other when the prime motivation for the health care industry is profit?

The profit motivation is what gives you all the advances we have today. The new drugs and treatments are not made as a gift to people but as a way for the developer to make money. Without the profit motivation then progress will without a doubt go down.

[Dan J 277]

If true, that would be a very sad indictment of the US governemt. Notwithstanding, it seems terrible to me that the availablitity of health care is driven by one's ability to pay. It also seems to be a terrible thing that even with health care insurance, people can still be left high and dry if somehow their insurance doesn't cover whatever illness they are struck down with. How can it be anything other when the prime motivation for the health care industry is profit?

The profit motivation is what gives you all the advances we have today. The new drugs and treatments are not made as a gift to people but as a way for the developer to make money. Without the profit motivation then progress will without a doubt go down.

Right, so why does Japan have more technology in health care than we do?

[Dan J 277]

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

Lets see here, you complain about the cost of public healthcare, but you ignore the fact that currently, private healthcare costs 50-100% more than the public systems that have been implemented in the developed world.

A cost which leave 47 million American uninsured. And when they require medical care, its those who can afford insurance that are footing the bill.

I fail to see how a private system is better, unless you are wealthy enough were cost isn't an issue.

It's not just the cost but also the lack of personal freedom and control. I like the way my health care is. I worked hard to get where I am. I am not willing to give up control of that to the government.

You assume that everything will be dictated by the government. Which if you take a completely social system it will be. However, in a one payer system, only the insurance side is socialized. We can control costs, and still keep choice. However, to visit a private provider, you may be paying the difference out of pocket. But a public provider would be paid for completely with insurance.

[GaryC 7]

If true, that would be a very sad indictment of the US governemt. Notwithstanding, it seems terrible to me that the availablitity of health care is driven by one's ability to pay. It also seems to be a terrible thing that even with health care insurance, people can still be left high and dry if somehow their insurance doesn't cover whatever illness they are struck down with. How can it be anything other when the prime motivation for the health care industry is profit?

The profit motivation is what gives you all the advances we have today. The new drugs and treatments are not made as a gift to people but as a way for the developer to make money. Without the profit motivation then progress will without a doubt go down.

Right, so why does Japan have more technology in health care than we do?

They adapt what American companies do, as does most of the rest of the world. They also export for profit things that they come up with on their own. If America suddenly stopped inovating progress world wide would slow down.

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

Lets see here, you complain about the cost of public healthcare, but you ignore the fact that currently, private healthcare costs 50-100% more than the public systems that have been implemented in the developed world.

A cost which leave 47 million American uninsured. And when they require medical care, its those who can afford insurance that are footing the bill.

I fail to see how a private system is better, unless you are wealthy enough were cost isn't an issue.

It's not just the cost but also the lack of personal freedom and control. I like the way my health care is. I worked hard to get where I am. I am not willing to give up control of that to the government.

You assume that everything will be dictated by the government. Which if you take a completely social system it will be. However, in a one payer system, only the insurance side is socialized. We can control costs, and still keep choice. However, to visit a private provider, you may be paying the difference out of pocket. But a public provider would be paid for completely with insurance.

That is how it may start out but when costs start to go up the government will start dictating what treatments can be given and who can have them. It would only be a matter of time. Let me repeat, I don't trust the government and don't want them to take over the health care of the country.

[Peikko 1,575]

The profit motivation gives us a lot of drugs that are useless, or worse than useless because their side effects are worse than the ailment they are treating. Seems like a pretty cracked up system to me. I don't know the figures, but I am guessing that many advances in treatment are as a result of Doctors interest in disease, not in some laboratory technician trying to increase his pay packet.

[GaryC 7]

The profit motivation gives us a lot of drugs that are useless, or worse than useless because their side effects are worse than the ailment they are treating. Seems like a pretty cracked up system to me. I don't know the figures, but I am guessing that many advances in treatment are as a result of Doctors interest in disease, not in some laboratory technician trying to increase his pay packet.

I must disagree. Every new wonder drug or treatment comes about from the idea that it will make money for the company.

[Dan J 277]

If true, that would be a very sad indictment of the US governemt. Notwithstanding, it seems terrible to me that the availablitity of health care is driven by one's ability to pay. It also seems to be a terrible thing that even with health care insurance, people can still be left high and dry if somehow their insurance doesn't cover whatever illness they are struck down with. How can it be anything other when the prime motivation for the health care industry is profit?

The profit motivation is what gives you all the advances we have today. The new drugs and treatments are not made as a gift to people but as a way for the developer to make money. Without the profit motivation then progress will without a doubt go down.

Right, so why does Japan have more technology in health care than we do?

They adapt what American companies do, as does most of the rest of the world. They also export for profit things that they come up with on their own. If America suddenly stopped inovating progress world wide would slow down.

What sucks about socialized health care? I am really interested in this point.

I'm still waiting to hear as well. But as often is the case on VJ, people say stuff to say it. Usually nothing to back it up.

Speaking as one who has benefitted from it, I can hardly wait to hear why.

I don't think the government can run everyones health care. Everything it gets its hands on turns into a bloated ineficent mess. Look at SS and Medicare. They are both going bankrupt. Look at anything the government does. Private companies do a much better job. My objection comes down to a total lack of trust in the government to do anything right. I worked my butt off to make sure I have health care and I do not want anyone, especially the government messing with it.

Lets see here, you complain about the cost of public healthcare, but you ignore the fact that currently, private healthcare costs 50-100% more than the public systems that have been implemented in the developed world.

A cost which leave 47 million American uninsured. And when they require medical care, its those who can afford insurance that are footing the bill.

I fail to see how a private system is better, unless you are wealthy enough were cost isn't an issue.

It's not just the cost but also the lack of personal freedom and control. I like the way my health care is. I worked hard to get where I am. I am not willing to give up control of that to the government.

You assume that everything will be dictated by the government. Which if you take a completely social system it will be. However, in a one payer system, only the insurance side is socialized. We can control costs, and still keep choice. However, to visit a private provider, you may be paying the difference out of pocket. But a public provider would be paid for completely with insurance.

That is how it may start out but when costs start to go up the government will start dictating what treatments can be given and who can have them. It would only be a matter of time. Let me repeat, I don't trust the government and don't want them to take over the health care of the country.

For the first one:

1. Not everyone has a profit motivation, drug research will still continue. We are also more likely to end up with drugs that are actually useful, not simply just drugs that make money.

2. In many cases, the profit margin on an average drug is so high, that cutting the price sigficantly will allow the company to still make money. But then if we do public drug research, does their need to be profit?

For the second one:

Insurance companies already dictate which treatments you can and cannot get. But isn't part of the reason for high health insurance costs, people getting unnecessary treatments?

[Peikko 1,575]

That is how it may start out but when costs start to go up the government will start dictating what treatments can be given and who can have them.

Currently, these things are dictated by the insurance companies, I don't really see how much choice there is, unless one is a millionaire. Take dental insurance for example, most dental insurance is way out of wack with what the actual costs of the the work. As a result, if you are unlucky enough to have defective teeth, you are either going to have them all pulled, or mortgage your house to pay for the work to be done. That's just crazy, and that's only teeth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

..he [bush] is a chopf##k...

You nailed it, Dean.

[GaryC 7]

For the first one:

1. Not everyone has a profit motivation, drug research will still continue. We are also more likely to end up with drugs that are actually useful, not simply just drugs that make money.

2. In many cases, the profit margin on an average drug is so high, that cutting the price significantly will allow the company to still make money. But then if we do public drug research, does their need to be profit?

For the second one:

Insurance companies already dictate which treatments you can and cannot get. But isn't part of the reason for high health insurance costs, people getting unnecessary treatments?

Sorry, I think you are totally wrong there. Profit is the prime motivator for innovation. It always has been and always will be.

For the second comment, I now have control over my health care. If I don't like the insurance I can always change insurance companies. I have done it in the past and if my current insurance changes to the point I don't like it I can change again. With the government running things I have no choice at all. What they decide is what happens. I don't want to give them that power over me.