Right to Privacy

[FallbrookFarmer]

Social Security is a federal program.

I don't understand your point?
Yes Social Security Is taxed at the Federal level, So?
Police, fire, libraries, ARE and SHOULD be taxed at the local level, to ensure that the people being taxed have control over it.

 

[dave1949]

The dictionary definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Key word in that definition is "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. "

The fact that we agree to provide for police, fire, schools, etc. does not in and of itself establish socialism. Socialism steps from "collective or governmental ownership of the means of production." Socialism means taking the means of production from the people and putting it under governmental control.

The Nazis were socialists, and remember how that turned out?

Stalin advocated collectivism, and remember how that turned out?

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

 

[keegs]

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

wwwhhhoooaaaaaa.... wwwhhhoooaaaaaa.....wwwhhhoooooaaaaa

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

1. The government will control the purse strings ergo control the "means".
2.The metrics(many of which are questionable) of which you speak are those of are those of cost. Personally I would rather have a degree of excellence metric when it comes to my health care, than one of cost.
3. The "scare" stories are real, why shouldn't we believe them?
4. Insurance is not Socialism. People enter into a voluntary pool. This bill will force people into a paying into a system that they have NO control over.
5.So the "wealthy" owe a debt to the "non-wealthy" who will benefit from this program?
6. If you want the costs to be brought to "a reasonable level" LET THE MARKET WORK!.
7. Question: Why do you think the costs of current health care are so high? Great article in the WSJ today about YOUR states Insurance Commissioner not allowing Insurance companies a profit this year, I'm sure that will do WONDERS for Health care in Maine . So STAY healthy Dave, there might not be too many more options soon!

 

[dave1949]

1. The government will control the purse strings ergo control the "means".
Not true. If I purchase insurance from a private company, how does the government control that? Sure, the gov't may force me into a pool, that is the idea.

2.The metrics(many of which are questionable) of which you speak are those of are those of cost. Personally I would rather have a degree of excellence metric when it comes to my health care, than one of cost.

Also not true. The problem is, our cost is high and our quality of care is average.

3. The "scare" stories are real, why shouldn't we believe them?

I didn't say don't believe them. I said we have our own medical horrors - do you deny that? If all of our care was perfect you would have a valid point, it isn't.

4. Insurance is not Socialism. People enter into a voluntary pool. This bill will force people into a paying into a system that they have NO control over.

You really believe most people have control now?

5.So the "wealthy" owe a debt to the "non-wealthy" who will benefit from this program?

Yet again not what I said. I said the wealthy derive their wealth from the society around them and they have an economic interest in the health of that society. Life is not a Monopoly Game where the game ends and one player and bank owns everything and then it's time to order pizza. In real life, no one in the game can afford for it to end. Somebody has to make the pizza.

6. If you want the costs to be brought to "a reasonable level" LET THE MARKET WORK!.

It would be fine for insurance companies to compete. The reality is since they are not actually providing care, they can only reduce costs by lowering their administrative overhead. I am not sure why we actually need them, but I will take your word for it

7. Question: Why do you think the costs of current health care are so high? Great article in the WSJ today about YOUR states Insurance Commissioner not allowing Insurance companies a profit this year, I'm sure that will do WONDERS for Health care in Maine . So STAY healthy Dave, there might not be too many more options soon!

Not that I think WSJ is biased, but - you answer my question and I'll answer yours - Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?

If you cannot, everything else is just noise because if there is to be a pool, it has to be real and undistorted, just like other functioning insurance pools.
Dave.

 

[riptides]

All I know for a fact is my cost have gone up, my service levels have gone down. Year after year after year.....

There must be a better way.

 

[2manyrocks]

All I know for a fact is my cost have gone up, my service levels have gone down. Year after year after year.....

There must be a better way.

Amen.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Not that I think WSJ is biased, but - you answer my question and I'll answer yours - Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?

If you cannot, everything else is just noise because if there is to be a pool, it has to be real and undistorted, just like other functioning insurance pools.
Dave.

Last first:
If I understand your question you are asking me if I can find a majority of people(Americans?) who are willing to buy health care without using a insurance pool?
My reply would be, why would they?
Insurance(real insurance, not a social welfare program, disguised as insurance) is a necessary and prudent thing to use in planning one's life.
REAL insurance has premiums based on actual risk, not some made up number to satisfy some voters.
Again, I agree that health costs are too high
AGAIN, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISTORTED THE MARKET!
As to the WSJ, if you can find me a paper that reports hard news any better, let me know, I will suscribe.
Horror stories: How about this? 20% of NHS facilities in the UK failed to pass BASIC hygiene tests(As reported in The Guardian, As Left as it gets) but facts are facts and hard to ignore. Please inform me which state in the US has a one out of five failure rate in their hospitals.
And also please tell me which state in the Union rations health care?
For everybody out there that thinks they are going to get something from the government for "free" Please explain to me why you are going to be paying into a system for Four years before receiving any benefit.
Did I answer you question?

 

[keegs]

Insurance companies won't insure old people, people who have pre-existing conditions and in some cases even people with insurance who become sick. In fact, if you're not double or triple covered and you require medical care, it's increasingly likely you'll be dissatisfied with your medical insurance policy.

The notion that left to its own devices the unfettered, free market would somehow solve this is ideological fantasy. It's blue skies, healthy forests, drill baby drill, tax cuts pay for themselves, Frank Luntz/Art Laffer garbage.

Our system costs double (almost triple the UK's) what others are paying around the world, leaves fifty million uninsured and produces mediocre results.

The system stifles our cost competitiveness, burdens taxpayers, industry and consumers, increases bankruptcy rates, promotes fear and anxiety and is responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.

We should have dumped this turd fifty years ago.

It's about time we did something about it.

 

[MikePA]

...and having the government run it will be better? How naive. There are plenty of people who are very happy with their health insurance, they just are not as vocal as the whiners and complainers. Having the government take over to 'fix' this so called problem is ridiculous. Comparing us to other countries is a vapid, worthless comparison, as if spending less is a virtue. Our 'costs' are the result of millions of people making individual choices, not a bureaucrat choosing a budget item. Sadly, this current change is permanent and will only get worse, however, when this happens all the people who were in favor of it will go silent.